Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

Comments Under Consideration June 18, 2013 Forum

4.2.3. J - The minimum square footage for accessory dwelling for 600 sq ft should be reduced to 350 sq ft for a dwelling. Table 4.1 - Allow senior housing without a special land use permit (SLUP) in low density residential areas. 5.4.5.E - There should be no reduction in transitional buffers at all Require masonry wall instead of just a fence. 5.7.4 - Hardiplank is not masonry. 5.1.10 - Do not exempt pervious surface from lot coverage Will cause you to end up with 80% of the lot in the alternative pervious surface You cannot plant trees on it so it reduces the ability to buffer the lot Define transit stops to mean transit stations; not bus stops. Cell towers in residential must go to board. No minimum square footage accessory structures. What residential districts are private drives allowed in (cottage homes)? Need variance mechanism in Article 7 to allow special exception to increase parking above maximum 7.5.13 reduce, increase over maximum, Need improvement in notification sign Larger signs/fonts Oppose concurrent variance. Internal appeal process by BOC.

Staffs Comments
Change will be made Permitted in RSM, MR-1,2,HR 1,2,3, OI, OIT Masonry wall is not affordable; reduction of buffer for redevelopment situations Hardiplank is a brand name for a fiber cement product which is on list. Encourage use of pervious pavers

Done. See bonus standards Done Only maximum proposed Anywhere where townhouse & cottage houses are allowed Language is waive or reduce so the ZBOA can waive the maximum allowed via variance application It will be 65% more cost to increase the size of the signs. Must consider budget Limited to only setbacks, buffers, lot coverage Administrative appeals are standard in all zoning ordinances for small changes (10% reduction in a standard) Adding notice requirement for administrative variance decisions. Same as above Administratively if 10%, ZBOA if more.

Reduce power of Planning Director; need public input. Parking regulations need process to increase minimum and maximum. 1

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

Minimum floor areas Existing homes in neighborhood are undersized; would like to rebuild at current size even if less than required by code Building materials Use of materials in a way that is not allowed should be subject to administrative decision, not ZBOA Absolute ban on vinyl siding seems to be misguided. Allowable exterior finishes for industrial buildings: metal buildings; could one construct a building with all pre-cast tilt-up panels. Use Table (page 4-7 commercial uses): Should a temporary FM be permitted anywhere a permanent Farmers Market is, particularly in commercial zones. 4.2.7. E.2 it changed to allow 4 dwarf goats per acre (compared with the 2 animals per acre for other livestock), but this language would still require two acres before a dwarf goat is allowed. We discussed allowing goats at minimum lot size of acre. 3.4.2.28. I regarding Farmers Market parking we agreed to add and/or off-site parking within 500 feet. Article 9, definition of an urban garden: delete last sentence that reads This definition excludes gardens accessory to an individuals residence. Requirement for minimum 30% brick if vinyl is used Not enough brick 4-1 Use Table Fuel dealers: should manufacture and wholesale not be in M; same with asphalt manufacturer not in M even with SLUP. General comments No cell towers allowed on school property. Cell towers are not needed in residential. Concerned with administration decisions. No cell tower in low density residential areas. I have the ability to regulate towers. Defer for __90 days__________ (cell towers). 2 Rebuild to current size allowed under some circumstances, such as fires but others would disagree regarding house size. Comment from Board and task force to maintain residential districts. Agree. Administrative variance to design standards of Art 5 provided for in Art. 7. Agree. Allow up to 30% as a secondary per faade visible from public street. Will add to industrial materials allowed Permanent farmers markets are allowed in non-residential districts. Temporary are allowed everywhere with limitations in residential areas. Will change

Done Not necessary to change definition. Need to clarify in supplemental regulations instead. 30% limitation is for the use of vinyl not brick Done

Under legal review See above See above. Administrative decisions on towers are not made in residential zones. See above. See above See above. 60- 90 days is under consideration

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

How to prohibit commercial use of public owned properties. Height (stealth) should be 35 everywhere. Need equal appeal rights as citizens. Concerned about lowering minimum parking standards which makes shared parking unfeasible. Concerned that lowering minimum parking standards across the board will not require enough parking and will end up with a lot of variances. Another concern that we should not lower parking requirement for restaurants or shopping centers. Concern regarding complexity of document Will it be difficult to enforce Adopt overlay map, plat along with code; make available to public. Code is most important to enforcement of ordinance. Format of meeting is confusing. Defer decision to October. Slow review and adoption of ZCU. Need check and balance. Review incentives on density Senior housing Leed standards Require street address on agendas. Require public review of proposed plat maps before adoption. When public input for Lawrenceville Highway LCI. Will you call a 90 day moratorium to address existing concerns, better get the word out and pass a new zoning code in which you can truly say there was comprehensive community input? Some/many of us citizens in Decatur want a zero growth option. Why must we kowtow to developers who build and then move on leaving us to live with their results? We need a moratorium on speeding through these dense developments. Mr. Baker said tonight R-75 has no changes in this zoning update. If cell towers are now allowed (even if by a SLUP) that is a change. We are looking for code to protect us as citizens not to make it easier for 3 See above Would reduce signal strength. Technology may move this way. All aggrieved parties may appeal Shared parking is a standard practice and frequently applied. Shared parking should reduce the need for variances Shared parking works especially well with mixed use developments Training and collaboration is planned There are GIS maps available Agree Thank you for your comment Under consideration Under consideration Comment noted Incentives were modified as appropriate

This is a current requirement Not applicable Not applicable Under consideration. Many opportunities for public comment have been held already in different settings. Staff does not agree with zero growth option.

This was clarified at the meeting Staffs approach sought balance. Code offers numerous protections to

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

developers. I believe I represent 5,000-10,000 citizens at least; most people do not have the time to come out tonight; I am not alone. The Bad This format is very confusing, not conducive to input from regular taxpayers The speed of this process is not conducive to taxpayer input The Good Making usable space truly usable (i.e. rocks-not usable Protecting and presenting neighborhoods Thank you for that! neighborhoods. This was just one of many public meetings with various formats

Thank you. You are welcome.

COMMENTS FROM MARTA Marta input density bonus for building around Marta transit stops. Marta wants inputs in planning process for new development near Marta transit stops Are high density areas located around transit stations refer to comprehensive

Will consider sending rezoning requests for MARTA to review and comment. Comprehensive plan promotes high density around MARTA stations.

The term MARTA Rail Station should be changed to MARTA Rapid Transit Station. Suggest that DeKalb may want to adjust the catchment area from mile from a rapid transit station to mile from a rapid transit station. We would suggest that a prohibition community parking lot be put in place near MARTA rapid transit stations. COMMENTS FROM LAVISTA PARK CIVIC ASSOCIATION June 24, 2013 2.7.3 has error using R-6 instead of R-75. Table 4.1 should not allow Outdoor Retail Sales in R-75 or R-85. 4.2.2.B.3 requires 10 side yard for accessory building, this should be reduced to equal primary building setback requirement for smaller lots 4

Change made

Change made

Under consideration

Done Dont permit outdoor retail, except seasonal sales Change made

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

(R-85 = 8.5; R-75 = 7.5). Table 4.1 + 4.2.3 Accessory Dwelling in R-75 + R-85 should be required to get SLUP if intended as rental unit. 4.2.57.D new stealth telecommunication facilities less than 60 feet tall in residential should be required to get SLUP, not just Administration Approval. 5.2.2 provides that minimum floor area for a zoning category not be reduced. Our neighborhood has houses of multiple development phases, not all to current standards, many are undersized. There should be a provision that allows for same size reconstruction due to casualty loss, few meet the 1600sf (R-75) and 1800sf (R-85) standards. 5.7.2 exemptions seem to account for this, but only if similar neighboring buildings are on the same block, uniformity that is not common in older subdivisions. 5.2.4 shows a Transitional Height Plane that allows 35 feet vertical after buffer and extends upward 45 degrees into site. As most of our homes are less than 35 allowable height, this would be intrusive and should be adjusted based on height of adjacent homes. Table 5.4 indicates a landscape strip of 4 feet adjacent to a local street. This is inadequate and we agree with the current proposed change to at least 5 feet minimum. 5.4.5 Transitional Buffers offers generous setback reductions for providing a 6 foot high opaque fence. There is no enforcement provision for ensuring maintenance of this fence. 5.7.4.A.1 regulates Exterior Building Materials, but makes no distinction between single family residential/commercial or industrial use. If the county intends to regulate materials, choices should be separated by category. These building types have evolved distinct aesthetics often based on structural systems. Was glass intentionally removed as an approved material? It is required as a major component in 5.7.7.B.3.b and yet 5.7.3.B says the more restrictive provision of code applies. Code requires upgrade at 60% loss, unless exemption can be proven. Buildings subject to casualty loss should be exempt from these cosmetic choices many of which require extensive structural work to install. 5 Not enforceable Done

Done; Article 8 grandfathers houses when destroyed by fire or act of God and Art 5 exempts building standards if they are inconsistent with existing neighborhood character.

No means of measuring each house; transitional buffers and height planes mediate these impacts. Future homes will probably be 35 feet.

Done

Code Compliance can enforce either under a property maintenance violation or a zoning violation. The materials list provides choices for both residential and commercial builders. We are adding some new materials as well. See above comment 5.2.2.

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

5.7.4.A.3 conflicts with 5.7.4.B which allows primary material to wrap 4 feet around side. Prohibited view from public street should be changed to frontage street. Accessory buildings 5.7.4.C.2 should also be exempt. Since these aesthetic choices are vague at best, they will require substantial staff review, but can only be mediated by the Planning Director or the ZBOA, a potential bottleneck. 5.7.4. C.1 does not adequately address the multitude of sloped roofing products available on the market. There is no definition of similar materials. Will concrete tile, clay tile, stone coated metal tile, painted metal tile, recycled rubber tile be considered? Will palletized living green roofs be considered for inclusion? 6.1.15. B should contain allowance for closer front and side yard RV setbacks during visit to allow for smaller lots. 6.1.15. E should allow for storage container during active construction or remodel permit, rather than 15 day limit. 7.7.7. A considering the time needed to acquire Development Permit and the state of financial industry, permit should be valid for 6 months till start of construction rather than 90 days. COMMENTS FROM BRUCE MACGREGOR June 16, 2013 Article 2. District Regulation page 2-1 thru 2-51 Table 2.2 Residential Zoning Districts Dimensional Standards R-LG: This is a combination of the old R-20,000 and R-30,000 districts. These 2 districts were designed for large but narrow existing lots, but were not implemented due the relatively wide lot width. The proposed RLG goes too far in the other direction. The minimum lot width should be increased from the proposed 55 to a recommended minimum lot width of 65. R-75: The building setbacks for R-75 should be increased to match those for R-85 and R-100 (ie: front setbacks of 50 from Major Thoroughfares, 40 form Minor Thoroughfares: 35; from collectors and other streets). 2.13.6 Accessory office, commercial and nonresidential uses. (Median Density Residential, MR-1) 6 Public street is customarily used

Agree. Under consideration

Add tiles. Adding language for innovative or green design.

Changed to same setbacks as accessory structures. Change made Change made

Increasing the lot width would create more nonconformity. Lot width can always be increased.

Direction from Board and task force was to leave single family residential districts as-is Staff recommended taking commercial out of multifamily as a requirement.

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

B. Limit floor areas of non-residential uses to 10%, if allowed at all. 2.5.1; 2.5.6; 2.7.1; Add Traditional Neighborhoods to the character areas suitable for R-LG, R-100, R-85, and R-75. Table 2.6 Residential Density Bonus Eligibility and Percent Density bonuses need to be completely reconsidered. They should be used judiciously and rarely in specific areas that warrant density increases. Many of the criteria and unrelated to density issues; it appears to be a grab bag of whatever is deemed a good idea. Density bonuses should be rare and limited to a few very specific areas. As written some of the items dont make sense. For example; if a site is zoned for 400 units, and the developer sets aside 40 units for very low income, he receives a density bonus of 200 units! Location within a reinvestment area is almost meaningless, since this includes over 2/3 of the entire county. As written, density bonuses will not steer density to specific areas, but will scatter it countywide. Density bonuses SHOULD BE DELETED until they can be revised and severely restricted. 27.2.29 Division 29. (OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL) DISTRICT Require a 2 story or 35 height limit for any O-I property that abuts a Single family Residential zone. For many years, O-I has been considered a transition use between neighborhoods and commercial areas. However, this is a broad category, ranging from converted homes to major hospitals. When the O-I-T zone was instituted a number of years ago, a decision were made NOT to down zone the numerous O-I districts adjoining single family residential areas. Consequently, the county has many O-I districts composed of single story, low intensity uses, including those in converted single family homes. However, these areas are zoned for 5 stories/70. A height limit of 2 stories or 35 is essential to maintaining the stability of the neighborhood edge in many areas. Eliminate Drive-thru (with possible exception of bank) uses, convenience uses with fuel pumps, and retail for any O-I property that abuts a single family area. These are not uses suited for a transition district at a neighborhood edge. Article 4. Use Regulations Table 4.1(working on this) 7 Done

Density bonuses are not allowed in R75, R85, and R100

Transitional height plane and buffers are intended to mitigate these impacts.

Technology has advanced speakers to adjust to ambient noise. Use permit required for fast food drive-thru currently.

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

4.2.57 Wireless Telecommunications (cell tower). This chapter was written by the industry and needs major revisions. There should be NO cell towers within residential districts. Administrative discretion should be severely limited. Article 5. Site Design and Building Form Standards 5.2.4 Transitional height plane. Change the starting point of the height plane from the proposed 35 down (or up) to the height of the highest eave of the adjacent house in the residential area. 5.3.2 Street Connectivity. (Note: This is a very good section, and is sorely needed. However, there appear to be some loopholes and/or vagueness). 5.3.2A Connectivity measures: What does the following statement mean? Each new street shall connect to the existing grid; applicants must demonstrate hardship to be waived from this requirement (topography, adjacent property owner, other similar constraint). Does this allow for more cul-de-sac subdivisions with one connection to the larger street network? What are the standards for waiver, and is there any public process involved? 5.4.5 Transitional buffers. Table 5.3(b): This table and the accompanying text provide for significant buffer reductions where a 6 high fence is installed. The proposed reductions include: Buffer Class w/o fence w/fence A 20 ft 10 ft B 30 ft 20 ft C 50 ft 30 ft D 75 ft 55 ft E 100 ft 100 ft Transitional buffers are critical in minimizing land use conflicts. There should be NO reduction for a fence. Rather, a 6-8 MASONRY WALL should be required in addition to the larger buffer. Article 6. Parking page 6-1 thru 6-16 6.1.3. Parking Regulations, off-street parking spaces. Table 6.1 shows 8.5 wide spaces for regular cars and 7.5 wide spaces for compact cars. 8 Proposing stronger ordinance. Under legal review

35 feet is the standard and is logical in terms of potential development of residences up to 35 feet. Loopholes not identified Each development is reviewed subject to site conditions, such as development of adjacent property (future or existing), topography, existing curb cuts, fire marshals recommendation, article 14 standards This is a technical review between department staff (fire, development, planning) and no public input is proposed

We are encouraging redevelopment along Commercial Redevelopment Corridors. Often times masonry walls are not feasible. The combination of height plane transitions, buffers and setbacks are to mitigate the impacts.

Agree

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

This is not adequate space to enter and exit an automobile, which is typically ~ 6 wide w a 2 (partially open) to 3 (fully open) door swing. Regular car spaces should be 9 and compact spaces should be 8.5. 6.1.6 Shared Driveways and inter-parcel access. Excellent concept, but Loophole not identified has huge loophole in sec. 6.1.6c: Allows for administrative waiver by Planning Director. Technical changes should be administrative. Consistent with other counties (Gwinnett, Newton, Henry and city of Atlanta) 6.1.3. b. Parking is allowed in O-I-T where parking.within the Will fix for all districts, including O-I-T. rear is impractical. This is a large loophole; front yard parking in O-I-T should require a SLUP. Article 7. Administration page 7-1 thru 7-22 General Comments: The proposed code significantly increases the Notification for administrative variances is added authority of the Planning Director, narrows the rights of appeal and does not provide adequate notice for appeal of administrative decisions. The requirements for standing to appeal decisions are far too strict. Without an effective right of appeal, much of the code becomes meaningless. Chapter 27 relates to Ch 14. A scriveners error in Ch 14 Changed Defer to legal department APPEALENT to APPLICANT. This one word change effectively eliminates anyone other than the owner of the subject property to appeal a decision. This must be changed ASAP! 7.3.12 Modification and changes to approved conditions of zoning. Definition of aggrieved party under consideration A. 3. Aggrieved person(s). This definition is very restrictive and should be changed. Suggested change: For purposes of this section, an aggrieved person is any property owner owning property within 1,500 feet of the subject property. 7.5.11 Power and Duty of the board to hear appeals of administrative Defer to legal department officials. The following statement should be deleted: A failure to act shall not be construed to be an order, requirement, or decision within the meaning of this division. a. Appeals of decisions by administrative officials. DELETE the failure to act statement. (Note: This provision has been used in the past to avoid acting on code enforcement complaints.) 9

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

A.1 CHANGE the aggrieved person definition to include any property owner within 1,500 square feet of the subject property. ADD to aggrieved persons or any county official. (Note: This is CRITICAL to assuring an effective right of appeal. 7.5.13 Power and Duty of the board to hear applications for variances to reduce of waive off-street parking or loading requirements. a. Character or use of the building. Note: Building uses can change. For example, many general purpose shopping centers have evolved into other uses, notably restaurants, which have higher parking requirements. The current proposal has no limits on the amount of parking to be reduced. Limits on parking reduction as well as provisions to limit conversions to uses requiring additional parking should be added. 7.5.18 Appeals of decisions of the zoning board of appeals. The definition of an aggrieved party should be changed to include any property owner located within 1,500 feet of the subject property. The wording that any DeKalb County Official may bring an appeal should be contained in the code. (Members of the Board of Commissioners, members of the Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission, and possibly others, should be able to bring appeals to Superior Court). Also, the appeal to Superior Court should be mandamus rather than certiorari, if possible. IF this change is not possible for a valid legal reason, the procedures for a writ of certiorari should be spelled out, and should be streamlined as much as possible.

Change of use of buildings requires parking ratio be addressed.

Under legal review

7.6.5 Administrative variances, administrative waivers: authority. Will change A.8a. Reduce the allowable administrative reduction in required minimum lot size regarding land subject to road right-of-way acquisition or donation from 50% down to 10%. Any further reduction should require a variance from the ZBOA. A.8b. and 8c. Should place a cap of 10% on the allowable reductions in building setbacks and required parking. 10

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

Article 9. Definitions page 9-1 thru 9-43 Building coverage: DELETE: and surfaces covered with pervious pavers. (Note: This was a loophole in an earlier code that was used by builders to pave rear yards. An option would be to limit pervious pavers to walkways and limit the square footage of their use.) Dormitory: Dormitory is an identified allowable use in certain districts, but has no definition. Note: Dormitory designation has been used in an attempt to get around the height limits on O-I zones adjacent to residential zones. A dormitory should be located on a college campus and operated by the college. Historic: ADD lot to the following list: A building, structure, LOT size, or district identified as historic Lot coverage: DELETE the words .and pervious paving materials (are not considered impervious). (Note: The exemption of pervious pavement from lot coverage calculations has resulted in the paving of rear yards in infill situations. Furthermore, pervious pavement is not truly pervious, and becomes less so it fills with oils, grease, and debris over time.) Transitional Height Plane: The transitional height plane is a good concept, but it should be modified to account for the actual height of adjacent residences. RECOMMENDED CHANGE: The transitional height plan should begin at an elevation equal to the highest eave of the adjoining residence. (Note: the current wording begins the height plane at 35, which is higher than most residences.) Will change

Will add

Defer to legal We want to encourage pervious materials. Unrealistic for county to regulate maintenance. Will modify language to limit amount of pervious credit.

35 feet is the standard and is logical in terms of potential development of residences up to 35 feet.

11

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

12