Zoning 2.0 Survey #1 Recommendations
This survey deadline has passed.
The City of Atlanta is asking for your input in its Zoning rewrite. BUT the survey that they developed is really confusing if you're not a land use professional! So we asked some experts to help us complete the survey with the goal of identifying responses that will prioritize increasing the total number of homes, increasing affordability, and promoting pedestrian-friendly policies.
Below are Abundant Housing Atlanta's recommendations for how to respond to the survey based on our values. This is organized by the "theme," question number, the question (typos and all), and the answer options. We have bolded and written in red our recommendations for those answers. For some questions, we don't have a recommendation! This could be because we were split internally, the question isn't relevant to affordability (so outside of our scope), or the answer depends on other factors. We have also included some recommendations for what to include in the many questions that say "Please leave additional comments below." This is because the questions don't always make a lot of sense! So we want to clarify our answers.
We hope this guide is helpful to you in filling out the survey! Please share with your friends!
The survey asks what NPU you live in: find your NPU here.
Theme A: Code Structure Survey
A1. What do you think of using Zone Strings in Atlanta? [No AHA position]
I fully support the concept.
I somewhat support the concept.
I'm neutral.
I somewhat oppose the concept.
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: This feels like a necessary change to make our zoning more flexible, but it also could easily be exploited to decrease the housing supply and affordability. If this is implemented, I will want to see an assurance that this will be used to increase the housing supply in our city and decrease the cost of living and that there will be tools to prevent exploitation of the Zone Strings to make neighborhoods even more exclusive.
Theme B: Existing Problems
B1. What do you think of creating new setback standards for where it is appropriate to match existing setback patterns, especially where built setbacks are much smaller or larger than the existing requirements?
I fully support the concept.
I somewhat support the concept.
I'm neutral.
I somewhat oppose the concept.
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below:
B2. What do you think of creating lot size standards for where it is appropriate to match existing lot size patterns, especially where existing lots are much smaller or larger than the existing requirement?
I fully support the concept.
I somewhat support the concept.
I'm neutral.
I somewhat oppose the concept.
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In): We should eliminate minimum lot sizes
Please leave additional comments below: It is essential to decrease lot size standards; currently, R4 (majority of intown single family) lot size is 9000 sq ft to be considered conforming, and about 75% of R4 lots are 7500 sq ft or less. That being said, I recommend reducing lot size standards even below the existing patterns, or even eliminating minimum lot sizes, to increase affordability. Please see this blog post on the impact on affordability of mandating minimum lot sizes: https://cayimby.org/the-impact-of-minimums-a-little-or-a-lot/
B3. What do you think of creating a “sliding scale” for where it is appropriate to provide predefined standards for existing lots that do not meet the minimum lot size? This model is currently used in Poncey Highland due to its large number of historic nonconforming lots.
I fully support the concept.
I somewhat support the concept.
I'm neutral.
I somewhat oppose the concept.
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In):
Please leave additional comments below: We should eliminate minimum lot sizes.
B4. How import to you is developing standards that reflect existing FORM (e.g., setbacks, lot sizes) patterns found across Atlanta (even if nonconforming) for future application, where appropriate?
Very important
Somewhat important
Neutral
Somewhat unimportant
Very unimportant
Please leave additional comments below: If what this question is asking is whether or not existing development should align with zoning, then yes, I support making nonconforming properties conforming. But again, we should have far fewer mandates that increase the cost of developing new buildings.
B5. The following uses are historically found in some neighborhoods but are often nonconforming today. Which, if any, do you think should be allowed again, where it is appropriate to do so? Select All That Apply
Accessory Dwelling Units, attached
Accessory Dwelling Units, detached (currently legal in R4, R4A, R5)
Corner Stores
Live-work Units
Duplexes (2 units per building)
Triplexes (3 units per building)
Quadruplexes (4 units per building)
Cottage Housing (2 to 4 units per lot)
Townhouses
Walk-ups (5-12 units per building)
Other (Write In): co-living
Please leave additional comments below: All of these uses already exist in historic Atlanta neighborhoods and support affordability more than the current zoning code. We should absolutely legalize all of these missing middle options!
B6. Can you think of pilot areas where it may be appropriate to test allowing any of the following and where there would be broad support? [Note from AHA: We don't have specific recommendations here, but please think about your own neighborhood and make recommendations if you have them!]
Accessory Dwelling Units, attached
Accessory Dwelling Units, detached (currently legal in R4, R4A, R5)
Corner Stores
Live-work Units
Duplexes (2 units per building)
Triplexes (3 units per building)
Quadruplexes (4 units per building)
Cottage Housing (2 to 4 units per lot)
Townhouses
Walk-ups (5-12 units per building)
Other (Write In):
B7. How import to you is developing standards that reflect existing USE patterns found across Atlanta (even if nonconforming) for future application, where appropriate?
Very important
Somewhat important
Neutral
Somewhat unimportant
Very unimportant
Please leave additional comments below: WE ABSOLUTELY MUST analyze where current demand, public transit, job centers, & public amenities already exist & immediately create code standards in those areas that are designed for people instead of cars. If we do, both the private and public sectors will be able to start to contribute in a significant way to develop housing & communities that are equitable, accessible, and create opportunity for everyone. Shifting the zoning to make nonconforming units conforming is necessary but insufficient to achieve our housing and affordability goals.
Theme 3: Frontages
C1. How do you feel about continuing to use Frontage Standards in the Zoning Ordinance
I fully support the concept.
I somewhat support the concept.
I'm neutral.
I somewhat oppose the concept.
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In):
Please leave additional comments below: We should take note of the strategies and lessons learned in California and their more severe housing crisis. The state recently approved the creation of flag lots with nominal frontage to encourage more housing creation. We already know we are headed toward the same fate of unaffordability, and we should be proactive in allowing greater flexibility to accommodate a variety of housing types where demand exists.
C2. Frontage Standards can be flexible/non-specific or inflexible/specific, depending on where they apply. What do you think is the right amount of regulation in the following places? [Use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means very flexible/unspecific and 5 means very inflexible/specific.
Rural neighborhoods (E.g., R1, R2) [AHA is divided on this, and we do not focus much on rural areas. No position]
1 (Very Flexible/Unspecific)
2
3
4
5 (Very Inflexible/Specific)
No opinion
Suburban neighborhoods (e.g., R3 today)
1 (Very Flexible/Unspecific)
2
3
4
5 (Very Inflexible/Specific)
No opinion
Urban neighborhoods (e.g., R4, R5 today)
1 (Very Flexible/Unspecific)
2
3
4
5 (Very Inflexible/Specific)
No opinion
Mixed-Use areas (most already have standards)
1 (Very Flexible/Unspecific)
2
3
4
5 (Very Inflexible/Specific)
No opinion
Industrial districts (e.g., 11, 12)
1 (Very Flexible/Unspecific)
2
3
4
5 (Very Inflexible/Specific)
No opinion
Major corridors
1 (Very Flexible/Unspecific)
2
3
4
5 (Very Inflexible/Specific)
No opinion
Transit station areas
1 (Very Flexible/Unspecific)
2
3
4
5 (Very Inflexible/Specific)
No opinion
Please leave additional comments below: The city of Houston has the slowest increase in rents of any large metropolitan area. They have no zoning. This is not a coincidence. If we want to ensure that our community is resilient enough to meet the housing demands of today and tomorrow, we need to create flexible standards that accommodate these demands.
C3. Should there be a way to regulate any of the following, where appropriate? Please do not consider Historic and Cultural Conservation Districts, where these standards usually exist. Select All That Apply
Architectural style (e.g., Arts and Crafts, Gothic, Spanish Revival, etc.)
Building width (e.g., when the widths of existing buildings determine how wide new buildings can be)
Exterior wall materials (e.g., brick, stone, stucco, wood siding, etc.)
Front setback compatibility (i.e., when existing building setbacks determine the required front setbacks)
Height compatibility (i.e., when existing building heights determines how tall a new building can be)
Porch and stoop compatibility (when the existence of porches or stoops determines if new buildings must have them). Please note, this is already required in R4, R5)
Roof form compatibility (i.e., when existing roof forms determine permitted new roof forms)
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: Zoning code should not determine design. This is an overreach of the legislative power intended by zoning laws and it could severely limit the beauty that diverse & innovative architecture can bring to a community. The only exception here is HEIGHT as a FORM that is 3X+ the height of an adjacent form can create issues far beyond design in a neighborhood. We should accept that architectural styles and building technologies change over time, and our code should acknowledge the value in diversity and innovation.
C4. Are there unique Frontage types in your neighborhood that you think the Zoning Ordinance should protect or require with new development? Please tell us your neighborhood and the unique feature. [We don't have a real recommendation here, other than the zoning code really should not be dictating design.]
C5. How import to you are frontage standards?
Very important
Somewhat important
Neutral
Somewhat unimportant
Very unimportant
Please leave additional comments below: Nonconforming lots and nonconforming frontages should not constrain a lot from having a home on it.
Theme 3: Parking Deck Form
D1.A. What do you think of active ground floor uses in parking decks? Please Select One
Require this
Encourage this with incentives
Neither require nor encourage this
No opinion
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: This is very important in good urban design to give pedestrians a feeling of belonging as they walk down the city block. This encourages designing for people instead of cars. That being said, it is more important to prioritize spending tax dollars to incentivize affordable housing creation, remove minimum parking standards to keep construction costs lower, and naturally encourage street-level activity.
D1.B. Where do you think requirements or incentives for active ground floor uses in parking decks should apply? Select All That Apply
Nowhere (I do not support the concept)
Everywhere
On major streets
On all streets
In urban mixed-use, commercial, and multifamily areas (e.g., like Howell Mill Road @ 14th Street or Metropolitan Parkway)
In suburban commercial and multifamily areas (e.g., like Northside Parkway near the Chattahoochee River, Jonesboro Road near 1-285, or Campbellton Road outside the Perimeter)
Near transit stations
Along trails and paths (e.g., the Atlanta BeltLine)
Along public parks
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: The City should not be providing incentives to parking decks; the City's limited resources should be spent overwhelmingly on affordable housing. That being said, if pedestrians are engaging with parking decks, there should be a requirement (NOT an incentive) to have active ground floor uses.
D2. What do you think of active upper story uses in parking decks?
Require this
Encourage this with incentives
Neither require nor encourage this
No opinion
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: We should prioritize spending tax dollars to incentivize affordable housing creation and remove minimum parking standards to keep construction costs lower. This would naturally encourage street-level activity.
D2.B. How high do you think active upper story use standards should apply?
The first two floors (typically 35 ft.)
The first three floors (typically 50ft)
The entire height of the parking deck
No opinion
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: These conditions are likely to drive up costs. Simply remove the parking minimums to maintain the greatest degree of flexibility and affordability. Removing parking minimus will encourage developers to figure out how much parking the market actually requires, which will allow for more housing and more money back into homes rather than parking. People over cars!
D2.C. Where do you think requirements or incentives for active upper story uses in parking decks should apply? Select All That Apply
Nowhere (I do not support the concept)
Everywhere
On major streets
On all streets
In urban mixed-use, commercial, and multifamily areas (e.g., like Howell Mill Road @ 14th Street or Metropolitan Parkway)
In suburban commercial and multifamily areas (e.g., like Northside Parkway near the Chattahoochee River, Jonesboro Road near 1-285, or Campbellton Road outside the Perimeter)
Near transit stations
Along trails and paths (e.g., the Atlanta BeltLine)
Along public parks
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: These conditions are likely to drive up costs. Simply remove the parking minimums to maintain the greatest degree of flexibility and affordability. Removing parking minimus will encourage developers to figure out how much parking the market actually requires, which will allow for more housing and more money back into homes rather than parking. People over cars!
D3.A. What do you think of parking decks designed to convert to other uses in the future? Adaptable parking is expensive, especially for developments that normally use pre-cast parking decks trucked in and assembled on-site. The cost is often passed onto to building occupants or customers, even if they don’t use it.
Require this
Encourage this with incentives
Neither require nor encourage this
No opinion
Other (Write In): Remove parking minimums
Please leave additional comments below: This is a nice idea but is an inferior idea to simply removing parking minimums or even establishing parking maximums near transit.
D3.B. Where do you think requirements or incentives for parking decks that can convert to other uses should apply? Select All That Apply
Nowhere (I do not support the concept)
Everywhere
On major streets
On all streets
In urban mixed-use, commercial, and multifamily areas (e.g., like Howell Mill Road @ 14th Street or Metropolitan Parkway)
In suburban commercial and multifamily areas (e.g., like Northside Parkway near the Chattahoochee River, Jonesboro Road near 1-285, or Campbellton Road outside the Perimeter)
Near transit stations
Along trails and paths (e.g., the Atlanta BeltLine)
Along public parks
Other (Write In): Remove parking minimums
Please leave additional comments below: This is a nice idea but is an inferior idea to simply removing parking minimums or even establishing parking maximums near transit.
D4.A. What do you think of buried parking? Buried parking is very expensive and dependent onthe geology of a site. The cost is often passed onto to building occupants or customers, even if they don’t use it.
Require this
Encourage this with incentives
Neither require nor encourage this
No opinion
Other (Write In):
Please leave additional comments below: This will likely drive up costs and decrease affordability. This is an inferior idea to simply removing parking minimums or even establishing parking maximums near transit.
D4.B. Where do you think requirements or incentives for buried parking should apply? Select All That Apply
Nowhere (I do not support the concept)
Everywhere
On major streets
On all streets
In urban mixed-use, commercial, and multifamily areas (e.g., like Howell Mill Road @ 14th Street or Metropolitan Parkway)
In suburban commercial and multifamily areas (e.g., like Northside Parkway near the Chattahoochee River, Jonesboro Road near 1-285, or Campbellton Road outside the Perimeter)
Near transit stations
Along trails and paths (e.g., the Atlanta BeltLine)
Along public parks
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: This will likely drive up costs and decrease affordability. This is an inferior idea to simply removing parking minimums or even establishing parking maximums near transit.
D5.A. What do you think of updating existing citywide parking deck screening and height standards to better reflect their context while still protecting adjacent properties from negative impacts?
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In): We should remove parking minimums to preclude parking deck construction. If a parking deck is constructed to support non-residential use, it should be designed to reduce disruption for residential uses.
Please leave additional comments below:
D6. How important to you is regulating the form of parking decks?
Very important
Somewhat important
Neutral
Somewhat unimportant
Very unimportant
Other (Write In): We should remove parking minimums to preclude parking deck construction. If a parking deck is constructed to support non-residential use, it should be designed to reduce disruption for residential uses.
Please leave additional comments below:
Theme 3: Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
E1. What do you think of reviewing each zoning district's maximum FAR and consolidating similar FARs, when possible? Please Select One
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In): Where possible, we should allow the maximum FAR possible, especially for residential, mixed-use, and multifamily
Please leave additional comments below:
E2. What do you think of not differentiating between residential and non-residential floor area in mixed-use development?
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In): I support density bonuses for residential uses, and particularly for affordable uses, but there are lots of corridors where the mixed-use gives way too much weight to commercial and not nearly enough to residential. You get underutilized buildings for commercial and hardly any residential. So I support this IF it encourages the right amount of commercial along those corridors with TONS more housing.
Please leave additional comments below:
E3.A. Which of the following things, which are not consistently counted towards floor area, do you think should be? Select All That Apply
None of these should count
Accessory dwelling units
Accessory structures, such as gazebos or private garages
Above ground parking decks
Buried parking decks
Common areas in multifamily developments (i.e., gyms, clubhouses, etc.)
Porches
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: Including these against the FAR would result in their area counting against the amount of residential (or commercial) space you can create on any given piece of land. ADUs make some sense to include, but we're in a housing shortage, and so even those should be given exceptions to create more opportunity, access, and equity city-wide.
E3.B. Which of the following things, which are not consistently counted towards floor area, do you think should continue to not be counted? Select All That Apply
These should all count
Accessory dwelling units
Affordable housing
All historic buildings, regardless of designation/protection
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: Including these against the FAR would result in their area counting against the amount of residential (or commercial) space you can create on any given piece of land. ADUs make some sense to include, but we're in a housing shortage, and so even those should be given exceptions to create more opportunity, access, and equity city-wide.
E4. Should any of the following allow more density on a site? Select All That Apply. Please note that most of these already provide FAR bonuses somewhere in the City today. These could be incorporated into zone strings. [The survey does not allow you to select both "Growth Areas" AND "Conservation Areas," so we recommend selecting 'Conservation Areas' but noting more density should be allowed in both.]
Affordable housing
In Growth Areas
In Conservation Areas
No opinion
Being close to a transit station
In Growth Areas
In Conservation Areas
No opinion
Environmental best practices
In Growth Areas
In Conservation Areas
No opinion
Parking management strategies (i.e., public parking, unbundled parking, etc.
In Growth Areas
In Conservation Areas
No opinion
Public open space
In Growth Areas
In Conservation Areas
No opinion
Shared driveways/inter-parcel access
In Growth Areas
In Conservation Areas
No opinion
Space for small businesses
In Growth Areas
In Conservation Areas
No opinion
Tree preservation (above minimum required by Tree Ordinance)
In Growth Areas
In Conservation Areas
No opinion
Voluntary historic preservation
In Growth Areas
In Conservation Areas
No opinion
Other (Write In): We need to encourage, incentivize, and permit greater housing density & provide density bonuses for affordable housing in Conservation AND Growth Areas. There also should not be conservation areas near transit stations or the Beltline.
E5. How important to you is updating FAR standards?
Very important
Somewhat important
Neutral
Somewhat unimportant
Very unimportant
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: We need to encourage, incentivize, and permit greater housing density & provide density bonuses for affordable housing in Conservation AND Growth Areas. There also should not be conservation areas near transit stations or the Beltline.
Theme F: Building Height
F1. What do you think of reviewing each zoning districts standards and consolidating similar heights, when possible? Please Select One
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below:
F2.A. What do you think of requiring minimum floor to ceiling heights for GROUND FLOORS? Please Select One
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: I support this for new construction where minimum ceiling heights allow for separate and additional living quarters.
F2.B. What do you think of requiring minimum floor to ceiling heights for UPPER FLOORS? Please Select One
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: I support this for new construction where minimum ceiling heights allow for separate and additional living quarters.
F3. What do you think of requiring building height to be periodically recalculated on sites with extreme topography? Please Select One
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: I support recalculating required building height in situations that will increase housing supply on challenging lots. This flexible standard should NOT become a tool to limit new housing.
F4. Should any of the following allow taller buildings to be built? Select All That Apply
Affordable housing
Being close to a transit station (Growth Areas)
Being close to a transit station (Conservation Areas)
Green buildings/green sites
Parking management strategies (i.e., public parking, unbundled parking, etc.)
Public open space
Space for small businesses
Tree preservation (above minimum required by Tree Ordinance)
Voluntary preservation of historic sites that are not otherwise protected
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below:
F5. How important is updating height standards to you?
Very important
Somewhat important
Neutral
Somewhat unimportant
Very unimportant
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below:
Theme G: Transitional Standards
G1. Which of the following ways to BUFFER between higher and lower intensity areas found in some neighborhoods do you think should be incorporated into Zone Strings for use in the higher intensity area, as appropriate? Select All That Apply
No buffer
Alley with no additional requirement
Alley + modest landscape strip
Existing tree preservation priority
Transitional buildings (i.e., buildings that conform to adjacent less intense zoning)
Visual screening with no additional requirement
Visual screening + modest landscaped strip
Visual screening + wide landscaped strip
Wide landscape strip (i.e. existing 20 ft. transitional yard)
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below:
G2. Which of the following ways to transition HEIGHT between higher and lower intensity areas do you think should be incorporated into Zone Strings for future use in the higher intensity area, as appropriate? Select All That Apply
No height transition requirement (i.e., zone controls height)
Existing transitional height plane
Numeric height limit within a certain distance
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below:
G3. Which of the following ways to transition HEIGHT between higher and lower intensity areas do you think should be incorporated into Zone Strings for future use in the higher intensity area, as appropriate? Select All That Apply
No height transition requirement (i.e., zone controls height)
Existing transitional height plane
Numeric height limit within a certain distance
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below:
G4. Which of the following ways to reduce light trespass? Select All That Apply [No AHA position]
No new outdoor lighting requirement
Light trespass limits from higher intensity areas into lower intensity areas
Light trespass limits within lower intensity areas (i.e., from a neighbor)
Light trespass limits onto any residential use, regardless of zoning
Light trespass limits from any parking lot, regardless of zoning
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below:
G5. How important is updating transitional standards to you? Please Select One
Very important
Somewhat important
Neutral
Somewhat unimportant
Very unimportant
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below:
Theme H: Open Space
H1. Should parking lots and loading areas be considered a type of open space? They currently are.
No
Maybe
Yes
No Opinion
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: Parking lots should not be open space; HOWEVER, it will be crucial to eradicate parking minimums and implement parking maximums near transit to ensure that we do not have requirements for parking AND open space, ultimately reducing the number of homes that can be built.
H2. What do you think of having different standard for the amount and type of open space depending on how rural, suburban, or urban an area is? [No AHA position]
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below:
H3.A. What do you think of requiring a consistent amount of open space that doesn't vary by density?
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: We would need to ensure that this would not limit the amount of potential housing that can be built.
H3.B. What do you think of requiring a set amount of COMMON open space for each new residential unit, regardless of lot size? An example would be a shared courtyard, pool area, or rooftop deck.
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: This would likely radically increase the cost of housing, impacting Atlanta's overall affordability. Strong opposition
H3.C. What do you think of requiring a set amount of PRIVATE open space for each new residential unit, regardless of lot size? An example would be a private balcony or patio
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: This would reduce the number of housing units that could be built on any given site, decreasing the overall supply of housing in the City and increasing the cost of homes, impacting Atlanta's overall affordability.
H3.D. What do you think of having different standards for the amount and type of open space depending on lot size? [No AHA position]
I fully support the concept
I somewhat support the concept
I'm neutral
I somewhat oppose the concept
I fully oppose the concept
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below:
H4. Are there types of open spaces that you think should be encouraged in certain areas? Select All That Apply. Please note that wetlands, stream buffers, and protected Historic and Cultural Conservation Districts, are excluded because they are already protected by City, State, or federal law.
Areas of mature trees
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Artificial water features, such as ponds or fountains
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Consolidated open space (where one large open space is provided versus several small ones)
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Covered open spaces (e.g., gazebos, patios, open pavilions)
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Farms and vegetable gardens
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Green roofs
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Historic sites that are not otherwise protected
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Landscape stormwater facilities
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Living walls
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
New public streets
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Outdoor dining
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Pedestrian streets
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Public art [No AHA position]
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Public gathering spots
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Shade structures [No AHA position]
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Trails and paths
Encourage In Growth Areas
Encourage In Conservation Areas
No Opinion
Other (Write In): There was no position for "discourage" or "do not encourage"! In any of these options, we should consider what "encourage" means - is this providing incentives? City mandates? If any of these options (such as water features, covered open spaces, etc.) would cost the City money that they could spend on affordable housing OR would be a required cost to a developer that they would pass on to potential residents, then I oppose these options. In addition, we need to design for people, not cars!
H5. How important is updating open space standards to you? Please Select One
Very important
Somewhat important
Neutral
Somewhat unimportant
Very unimportant
Other (Write In)
Please leave additional comments below: