dekalb zoning code comments june 18, 2013

7/27/2019 DeKalb Zoning Code Comments June 18, 2013

1/12

Zoning Code Update Comments 2013

1

Comments Under Consideration

June 18, 2013 Forum

Staffs Comments

4.2.3. J - The minimum square footage for accessory dwelling for 600 sq ftshould be reduced to 350 sq ft for a dwelling.

Change will be made

Table 4.1 - Allow senior housing without a special land use permit (SLUP)

in low density residential areas.

Permitted in RSM, MR-1,2,HR 1,2,3, OI, OIT

5.4.5.E - There should be no reduction in transitional buffers at all

Require masonry wall instead of just a fence. Masonry wall is not affordable; reduction of buffer for redevelopmentsituations5.7.4 - Hardiplank is not masonry. Hardiplank is a brand name for a fiber cement product which is on list.

5.1.10 - Do not exempt pervious surface from lot coverage

Will cause you to end up with 80% of the lot in thealternative pervious surface

You cannot plant trees on it so it reduces the ability tobuffer the lot

Encourage use of pervious pavers

Define transit stops to mean transit stations; not bus stops. Done. See bonus standards

Cell towers in residential must go to board. Done

No minimum square footage accessory structures. Only maximum proposed

What residential districts are private drives allowed in (cottage homes)? Anywhere where townhouse & cottage houses are allowed

Need variance mechanism in Article 7 to allow special exception to

increase parking above maximum7.5.13 reduce, increase over

maximum,

Language is waive or reduce so the ZBOA can waive the maximum allowed via

variance application

Need improvement in notification sign

Larger signs/fonts It will be 65% more cost to increase the size of the signs. Must consider budgetOppose concurrent variance. Limited to only setbacks, buffers, lot coverage

Internal appeal process by BOC. Administrative appeals are standard in all zoning ordinances for small changes

(10% reduction in a standard) Adding notice requirement for administrative

variance decisions.

Reduce power of Planning Director; need public input. Same as above

Parking regulations need process to increase minimum and maximum. Administratively if 10%, ZBOA if more.


2/12


2

Minimum floor areas

Existing homes in neighborhood are undersized; would like torebuild at current size even if less than required by code

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.

Building materials

Use of materials in a way that is not allowed should besubject to administrative decision, not ZBOA

Agree. Administrative variance to design standards of Art 5 provided for in Art.

7.

Absolute ban on vinyl siding seems to be misguided. Agree. Allow up to 30% as a secondary per faade visible from public street.

Allowable exterior finishes for industrial buildings: metal buildings; could

one construct a building with all pre-cast tilt-up panels.

Will add to industrial materials allowed

Use Table (page 4-7 commercial uses): Should a temporary FM be

permitted anywhere a permanent Farmers Market is, particularly in

commercial zones.

Permanent farmers markets are allowed in non-residential districts. Temporary

are allowed everywhere with limitations in residential areas.

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.

Will change

3.4.2.28. I regarding Farmers Market parking we agreed to add

and/or off-site parking within 500 feet.

Done

Article 9, definition of an urban garden: delete last sentence that reads

This definition excludes gardens accessory to an individuals residence.

Not necessary to change definition. Need to clarify in supplemental regulations

instead.

Requirement for minimum 30% brick if vinyl is used

Not enough brick 30% limitation is for the use of vinyl not brick4-1 Use Table Fuel dealers: should manufacture and wholesale not be in

M; same with asphalt manufacturer not in M even with SLUP.

Done

General comments

No cell towers allowed on school property. Under legal review

Cell towers are not needed in residential. See above

Concerned with administration decisions. See above. Administrative decisions on towers are not made in residential

zones.

No cell tower in low density residential areas. See above.

I have the ability to regulate towers. See above

Defer for __90 days__________ (cell towers). See above. 60- 90 days is under consideration


3/12


4/12


4

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.

neighborhoods.

The Bad

This format is very confusing, not conducive to input from regulartaxpayers

The speed of this process is not conducive to taxpayer input

This was just one of many public meetings with various formats

The Good

Making usable space truly usable (i.e. rocks-not usable Protecting and presenting neighborhoods

Thank you for that!

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 newdevelopment near Marta transit stops

Are high density areas located around transit stationsrefer 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.

Change made

Suggest that DeKalb may want to adjust the catchment area from mile

from a rapid transit station to mile from a rapid transit station.

Change made

We would suggest that a prohibition community parking lot be put in

place near MARTA rapid transit stations.

Under consideration

COMMENTS FROM LAVISTA PARK CIVIC ASSOCIATION June 24, 2013

2.7.3 has error using R-6 instead of R-75. Done

Table 4.1 should not allow Outdoor Retail Sales in R-75 or R-85. Dont permit outdoor retail, except seasonal sales

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

Change made


5/12


5

(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.

Not enforceable

4.2.57.D new stealth telecommunication facilities less than 60 feet tall in

residential should be required to get SLUP, not just AdministrationApproval.

Done

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.

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.

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.

No means of measuring each house; transitional buffers and height planes

mediate these impacts. Future homes will probably be 35 feet.

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.

Done

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.

Code Compliance can enforce either under a property maintenance violation or

a zoning violation.

5.7.4.A.1 regulates Exterior Building Materials, but makes no distinction

between single family residential/commercial or industrial use. If thecounty 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.

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.


6/12


6

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.

Public street is customarily used

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.

Agree. Under consideration

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?

Add tiles. Adding language for innovative or green design.

6.1.15. B should contain allowance for closer front and side yard RV

setbacks during visit to allow for smaller lots.

Changed to same setbacks as accessory structures.

6.1.15. E should allow for storage container during active construction or

remodel permit, rather than 15 day limit.

Change made

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.

Change made

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 R-LG 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.

Increasing the lot width would create more nonconformity. Lot width can

always be increased.

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).

Direction from Board and task force was to leave single family residential

districts as-is

2.13.6 Accessory office, commercial and nonresidential uses. (Median

Density Residential, MR-1)

Staff recommended taking commercial out of multifamily as a requirement.


7/12


7

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.

Done

Table 2.6 Residential Density Bonus Eligibility and Percent

Density bonuses need to be completely reconsidered. They should beused 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.

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

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 zonedfor 5 stories/70. A height limit of 2 stories or 35 is essential to

maintaining the stability of the neighborhood edge in many areas.

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

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.

Technology has advanced speakers to adjust to ambient noise. Use permit

required for fast food drive-thru currently.

Article 4. Use Regulations

Table 4.1(working on this)


8/12


8

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.

Proposing stronger ordinance. Under legal review

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.

35 feet is the standard and is logical in terms of potential development of

residences up to 35 feet.

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 publicprocess involved?

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

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 ftE 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.

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.

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.

Agree


9/12


9

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

has huge loophole in sec.

Loophole not identified

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

rear is impractical. This is a large loophole; front yard parking in O-I-T

should require a SLUP.

Will fix for all districts, including O-I-T.

Article 7. Administration page 7-1 thru 7-22

General Comments: The proposed code significantly increases the

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.

Notification for administrative variances is added

Chapter 27 relates to Ch 14. A scriveners error in Ch 14 Changed

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!

Defer to legal department

7.3.12 Modification and changes to approved conditions of zoning.

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.

Definition of aggrieved party under consideration

7.5.11 Power and Duty of the board to hear appeals of administrativeofficials. 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.)

Defer to legal department


10/12


10

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.

Change of use of buildings requires parking ratio be addressed.

7.5.18 Appeals of decisions of the zoning board of appeals.

The definition of an aggrieved party should be changed to include anyproperty 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.

Under legal review

7.6.5 Administrative variances, administrative waivers: authority.

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.

Will change


11/12


11

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.)

Will change

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.

Will add

Historic: ADD lot to the following list: A building, structure, LOT size,

or district identified ashistoric

Defer to legal

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 trulypervious, and becomes less so it fills with oils, grease, and debris over

time.)

We want to encourage pervious materials. Unrealistic for county to regulate

maintenance. Will modify language to limit amount of pervious credit.

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.)

35 feet is the standard and is logical in terms of potential development of

residences up to 35 feet.


12/12


12

dekalb zoning code comments june 18, 2013

Documents