Plan A - Draft Land Use and Neighborhood Planning Chapters (Supplemental Information)

The streets and sidewalks in Atlanta are barely maintained. The infrastructure in the City is falling apart and must be addressed BEFORE more density is encouraged.

This would be a great idea if MARTA rail actually went more than a few places. The public transit system in Atlanta is a shell of what it needs to be for this to work.

There are neighborhoods in the city that would qualify for this 1/2 mile designation that have already experienced significant growth over the past 20 years. Their road, tree, water, and school infrastructure can't handle any more density. Why not improve sidewalks, bring last mile transportation and other incentives to facilitate increased use of public transportation rather than make them a focus of increased density.

I don't understand this -- any zoning district can be claimed for a community use (e.g., hospital, community center, beltline) or this potentially could be done with special use review of some type?

The grey in the RG3 column indicates that the proposal is for a substantial increase in density from what RG3 currently allows, and the propsal introduces commercial uses into what is currently RG3. The proposed density would come as a shock to any neighborhood abutting RG districts. RG districts abutting neighhborhoods should see no increase in density or broadening of allowable uses without a democtratic rezoning process that includes neighborhood input.

I assume Exhibit A above is the existing compatibility table? (It's hard to imagine that any SFR category could be deemed consistent with high density residential or commercial categories as shown. )

None of these upzonings should occur without going through the entire rezoning process and considering all the relevant facts, circumstances and conditions, not just those identified here. There should also be provisions to protect legacy residents, historic neighborhoods (including those listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places), and the character of impacted neighborhoods. Without meaningful limitations and controls too much of what makes Atlanta "Atlanta" will be lost with these upzonings--especially if they are imposed in the across-the-board way proposed--and the only winners will be the developers.

Adding increased housing density within a walkshed of MARTA stations makes sense in theory, but if it is wielded like a sledgehammer as proposed here (and by the Farohki legislation in 2021), it will do irreparable damage to some historic neighborhoods, otherwise destroy neighborhood character and displace many legacy residents. These provisions need to be far more nuanced, as Atlanta City Design provides, to temper development with conservation of "what we value." That means protecting historic assets--not just those with "historic" or "landmark" zoning overlays, but those listed (or eligible for listing) on the National Register of Historic Places--from transit-oriented development. Otherwise, virtually all of Candler Park (a National Register-listed neighborhood) will be wiped out, along with a substantial portion of Ansley Park (another National Register-listed neighborhood). It also means legacy residents need to be protected from predatory developers who stalk and try to scare them into relinquishing their homes for a song (as happened in 2021 in NPU-I)--and that other measures need be adopted to protect legacy residents from displacement and to assure that a significant segment of the new development actually is affordable.. And it means that stronger design controls need to be imposed to maintain the character of impacted neighborhoods. Without meaningful limitations and controls too much of what makes Atlanta "Atlanta" will be lost, and the only winners will be the developers replacing older homes and/or historic homes with crammed-in, out-of-character luxury condos that many current residents could not begin to afford.

This table should not be removed - it is a stop gap for over development in LLSF, MKSF, LD and MD - it used to cap MD at .695 new MD is at 1.6 GLA - keep this and add another category for med-high density don’t just change the goal posts on the category names.

· R5 should not be in same Land Use category as R4 – R5 is a higher density and allows duplex development plus 4 ADUs · Conditional Up-zoning should never be permitted – all rezoning should go though a case-by-case rezoning process. · Conditional up-zoning contradicts the concept of Conservation and Growth areas from Atlanta City Design. · Conditional up-zoning could have a devastating effect on the City’s historic resources, promoting the demolition of historic structures, changing historic lot patterns, stressing aged infrastructure and decimating our tree canopy by allowing excessive lot coverage. · Commercial Uses should not be allowed in residential areas; Medium Lot Single Family, Low Density Residential and Medium Residential. Neighborhoods that want to add commercial uses should go through the rezoning process and gather community input. · FAR in Medium Density Residential should not exceed .696, as indicated in the current CDP, RG3 is currently capped at .696 · RG3 is currently capped at .696 FAR, it should either be put in “Low Density Residential” or the scale of “Medium Density Residential” need to revert back to the current standards. · Units/Acre and FAR limitation table from CDP should not be removed, it provides a stop-gap for potential over-development in Single Family, Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Areas. · Historic preservation should be a consideration in re-zoning applications and should be codified with the rest of criteria that determines negative impact of rezoning. · One of the Goals of the CDP should be to balance progress with preserving places that are important to us. Historic preservation should be a priority. · Alleys are not right-of-ways and should not replace street frontage requirements. Alleys were abandoned by the City decades ago and neighbors abutting abandoned alleys have rights asserted in one half of the abutted alley. The City therefore has no rights to reclaim what they abandoned. If the City permits projects on alleys, the City opens itself to lawsuits. · Ensure that adequate transitional height plains, screening and buffers are required where higher intensity land use abuts any lower intensity land use.

These conditions are many and cannot easily override the underlying zoning. As transit and the Beltline expand, this is a LOT of housing we are talking about in numerous zoning types. I have to question how this fine print might undermine everything that precedes it.

...and plans to promote densification and redevelopment are contrary to preservation of communities, character, history, trees, and green space. Many residents, including me, live where we live because we identified a community that fits our needs.

Have any studies been done on the relationship between densification and housing affordability, particularly in desirable areas like those near transit and amenities? Why would someone buy expensive, developed property, demolish what's there, and build something less expensive? They wouldn't. Even more units doesn't lower the per-unit price. It just becomes the profit necessary for the developer to do the job.

In the old table, R5 could not implement in Single Family Residential, does this change mean that R5 development (ie duplexes) could be implemented in Single Family R4 neighborhoods (Medium Lot Single Family)? I think R5 needs to move to Low Density Residential and should not be allowed to implement in MLSF. OR there should be a category between LLSF and MLSF to fit the current R4 that only allows 1 ADU and does not allow R5, nor RCL, MRMU, NC to implement.

Although this section was in the "medium density" land use category in the old CDP, the new "medium density" land use category would allow far more density. I think it's more appropriate to now put this in "low density" - the RG3 Zoning conversion is out of scale too, it should be revised to reflect current conditions as a buffer to an R4 neighborhood, once that is done, the new category should implement in Low Density and this area that abuts Medium Lot Single Family should change to Low Density.

Amsterdam Walk needs to be 5-9 stories max next to the Beltline, and 1-4 stories adjacent to the single family dwellings to the east and south. The developer is hoping for a "10+ story" limit (I think the "+" means no limit at all) and this will dump way, way too much traffic onto Monroe Drive. Already, injuries/fatalities on Monroe Drive are 182% of pre-Covid levels. I support re-development. I oppose over-development, which is what this developer proposes. This type of aggressive overdevelopment is going to destroy the Beltline and destroy Complete Streets for Monroe Drive. But then, the property owner (Halpern) and the developer (Portman) will have made their money and be long gone. We will be left to clean up the mess. Let's be proactive and fix the problem before it starts.

I don't want to offend anyone, but isn't this the rezoning that generated so much opposition just a few years ago? Is that being snuck in again here, sort of under the radar? I think of this a "juggernaut rezoning". All single family houses within a one-mile swath along every transit route become candidates to get torn down and replaced with condos? This seems so radical; it would drastically change the character of the city. Atlanta would become a city of 5-over-1 el-cheapo condos (which, sadly, it already is to a significant extent.) The discourse of "missing middle" seems insufficient to address the question at hand. What is a vision of city design that increases density while preserving and enhancing urban character? We live in a beautiful city; let's not tear it down. This document is very technical -- probably too technical for what is at stake. We need a much broader debate/discussion/public education. I am not absolutely opposed to up-zoning for increased density, but I don't feel that I have been adequately informed, and I don't trust the City to have a fully open and informed process. (Sorry, Amir, I like you as an elected official, but you lost the trust of many of us citizens with that previous surprise attempt to rezone the city!)

Even as we fret over high housing prices and the seeming lack of available housing, Atlanta has huge swaths of downtown that are nearly vacant. South Downtown, the Gulch, Underground, Garnett have acres and acres of unused land. Courageous developers are investing there, and that is great, but there is still enormous capacity for increased residential development there. So before we rezone existing residential neighborhoods so that that historic homes can be torn down and replaced with condominiums, let's build on the available land south of downtown. It may be harder for developers to convert urban blight into urban charm, but that is what the last generation of developers had to do in Midtown, Tech Square, West Midtown, and other places. One obvious solution to Atlanta's housing shortage is to fill in the city's huge inventory of empty lots.

WOW - I am just realizing that these are the conditions that would allow MRMU in R4- this would allow 12 units, 70% lot coverage, 10-25 ft front set-back, 2,000 sf min lot size, no FAR requirement (?) ie. allowing MRMU development in R4 neighborhoods that are 1/2 mile from transit or 1/4 mile from Beltline. This does NOT fit the existing development pattern in many in-town neighborhoods, it will decimate our tree canopy and will encourage the demolition of many historic properties. There was a tremendous out pouring of opposition when this was introduced under Tim Keane, why would you think residents would support this now? Hard NO to conditionally allowing the implementation of RLC, MRMU and NC in Medium Lot Single Family areas.

MUCH more conversation needs to occur around the implications of the changed compatibility tables for Medium-Lot Single Family, especially in Buckhead where so many historic neighborhoods are adjacent to commercial areas. Destabilizing these neighborhoods, either accidentally or on purpose, would be a grave mistake for the future attractiveness of Atlanta for its most productive and civiic-minded citizens!

Does compatible = convertible? Can someone in R-4/MLSF convert a single family home into a commercial business in the middle of a residential neighborhood?

What are the conditions? Please do not forget the HUGE uproar when MRMU was proposed in R districts within TOD areas....

What conditions would allow this type of development? It does not seam compatible in a single family zoning.

What conditions would allow this type of development? It does not seam compatible in a single family zoning.

What conditions would allow this type of development? It does not seam compatible in a single family zoning.

The residents of he South Atlanta Neighborhood east of Lakewood Ave that live on lots zoned R4A and R5-C have submitted this petition state that the current land use remain SFR(Single Family Residential) under the current 2021 CDP and Medium Lot Single Family Residential. in the 2021 CDP Update. A similar petition was made to drop Plan D from Z-19-07 in 2019. Here is the petition: link

How do I get access to the data on responder information and comments? In this case, where can i find the documentation on reposes related to ADUs?

traffic management should include rotaries where applicable (5 way intersections of smaller streets) providing for traffic flow instead of traffic lights which stop traffic, causing idling vehicles to pollute the air more

Why are these areas white? They are part of the incorporated city and not ROW, correct?

Why are the R4A and R5C properties East of Lakewood Avenue being designated as a 'Discussion Area' in the current 2021 CDP Update for possible higher density Land Use and Zoning? There should be no reason to discuss any other type of Land Use or zoning for this area. In 2019, the residents of this area successfully petitioned their City Councilperson Carla Smith to remove any changes in Land Use and zoning suggested in Part D of the South Atlanta Redevelopment Plan for this area. For those residents, there is nothing more that should be discussed, and no discussion of denser Land Use or zoning should be discussed for this area. Here is the Z-19-07 zoning legislation for the South Atlanta Redevelopment Plan link