×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Discussion Draft Chapter 8: Development Standards

Review and comment on the draft Development Standards.

The Development Standards chapter contains assorted regulations for things like parking, loading, transitions, landscaping, and more. Most of the standards within this chapter are unchanged from existing standards but have been consolidated for ease of use. Some elements, including density bonus and sign standards, will be released at a later date. 

Please share any thoughts you have about the Development Standards with us. Your comments will be used to shape the future drafts of ATL Zoning 2.0.
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 9:04PM on page 41

Suggestion
I think elsewhere in the code we are stating that the edge of the easement is where set- back requirements begin. Wouldn't it be logical to use that here also?
replies
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 9:00PM on page 36

Suggestion
I agree with Ms. Friese. Type B is not appropriate.
replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 8:57PM on page 30

Suggestion
"lane"
replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 8:49PM on page 23

Suggestion
If the requirement is 10% why not start at 10 parking spaces? Or are we rounding up so that anything more than 5 would have at least one EV charging station?
replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 8:38PM on page 10

Question
I'm confused by this. Doesn't the code state that where an alley exists vehicular access must be from the alley? How does that marry with the right to a curb-cut?
replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 8:35PM on page 10

Suggestion
When I specifically think about the alley between Peachtree Street and Peachtree Circle which is used by single family homes on the Peachtree Circle side, I'm hard pressed to understand how a new condo tower with 300 cars could use that alley as it's sole access point for cars. That alley would need to be improved to the level of a one-way street to handle that volume of traffic.
replies
in reply to Patrick Ford's comment

SiteAdmin Feb 28 2025 at 7:41AM on page 21

Answer
Yes. They are. THANK YOU.
replies

Patrick Ford Feb 27 2025 at 1:04PM on page 21

Question
Are the min and max numbers flipped? 1 per 200 min on 1200sf establishment would yield 6 slots minimum and 1 per 400 would yield 3 spots maximum.
replies
in reply to LarryA's comment

SiteAdmin Feb 7 2025 at 4:59PM on page 6

Answer
This standard seeks to ensure that large development sites incorporated new streets that form an interconnected network. A grid pattern, per se, is not required. Many parts of Atlanta have connected streets that are curvilinear in layout. Ansley Park and Inman Park are examples of this.
replies

LarryA Feb 7 2025 at 5:18AM on page 6

Question
Is this section in reference to new developments/neighborhoods to make their streets gridded rather than unconnected as many are today?
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Feb 6 2025 at 3:18PM on page 48

Answer
Thank you for comments. We will address this in the revised Chapter 8 draft.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Feb 6 2025 at 3:14PM on page 53

Answer
Thanks. We will specify this.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Feb 6 2025 at 3:12PM on page 58

Answer
A2 is allowed in where fences and walls are prohibited, except when required for certain alcoholic uses. A3 allows them without this limitation.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Feb 6 2025 at 1:43PM on page 65

Answer
Thank you for your feedback.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Feb 6 2025 at 1:19PM on page 69

Answer
Thank you for your feedback. We will be updating various provision regarding coordination with other City departments.
replies

Laurel David Feb 3 2025 at 12:08PM on page 69

Suggestion
The City Arborist has final say on changing anything covered by the tree protection ordinance
replies

Laurel David Feb 3 2025 at 12:03PM on page 65

Suggestion
this appears to prohibit any retaining wall other than finished poured concrete. Commercial and industrial uses tend to use concrete block. Single family home owners would probably choose to construct from brick, stone or decorative concrete block
replies

Laurel David Feb 3 2025 at 11:50AM on page 57

Suggestion
It is not clear whether the standards apply to walls as well. They are all called Fence Type. It also isn't clear if no opacity max is mentioned then that means it can be 100%. Maybe that should be added where applicable
replies

Laurel David Feb 3 2025 at 11:44AM on page 58

Question
what is the difference between this and A2?
replies

Laurel David Feb 3 2025 at 11:42AM on page 53

Suggestion
I suggest that herbie curbies are listed as not being a "waste receptacle" so homes are exempt from these requirements. its not clear
replies

Laurel David Feb 3 2025 at 11:37AM on page 48

Question
what is an "utility area"? I suggest transformers are exempted from the screening requirement. Power companies have particular standards about what can be placed around their transformers.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 28 2025 at 5:12PM on page 68

Answer
Agreed. They will not typically, but where there are extremely high transmission lines it is sometimes an option.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 28 2025 at 5:09PM on page 68

Answer
Yes. We have coordinated with the Arborist Division. If the TPO is adopted with a different standard, we will modify these to match it.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 28 2025 at 5:06PM on page 27

Answer
This will be updated. Thanks/
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 28 2025 at 5:04PM on page 20

Answer
Thanks for your feedback.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 28 2025 at 4:58PM on page 10

Answer
As drafted, this is OZD, but we will look into clarifying this. Thanks!
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 28 2025 at 4:56PM on page 10

Answer
Great point. Thanks!
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 28 2025 at 4:55PM on page 9

Answer
All Relief provisions will be updated and clarified following release of Module III.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 28 2025 at 4:52PM on page 6

Answer
The Zoning Ordinance is administered by the Director, who may consult with other City Departments before rendering decisions. We will explore adding such a notation for this provision.
replies

Laurel David Jan 24 2025 at 3:37PM on page 68

Suggestion
I doubt GA Power will allow the tree height to be increased, even if the Director will. Ga Power should be consulted
replies

Laurel David Jan 24 2025 at 3:34PM on page 68

Question
Has this section been synchronized with the new tree preservation ordinance?
replies

Laurel David Jan 24 2025 at 3:29PM on page 27

Suggestion
"Screened with a permanent structure" is confusing. It sounds like a fence, but even an 8-foot fence won't screen a parking deck. It is not clear if screening that is part of the facade's architectural material is allowed.
replies

Laurel David Jan 24 2025 at 3:20PM on page 20

Suggestion
this seems really high for pre-k and primary education where only the staff have cars.
replies

Laurel David Jan 24 2025 at 3:14PM on page 14

Suggestion
Why not allow linked access to attached homes? it would reduce the amount of impervious surface and be more sustainable even if a max of three could be linked
replies

Laurel David Jan 24 2025 at 3:10PM on page 10

Suggestion
Director of OZD? or ATL DOT I made this comment above. If the decision in the code rests with the Director of OZD, it could conflict with ATL DOT, which may mean having to make modifications to the site plan at the permitting stage. The earlier ATL DOT can be consulted in the approval process regarding access to the public road network, the more efficient it will be
replies

Laurel David Jan 24 2025 at 3:06PM on page 10

Suggestion
rather than using "side street", it might be better to require access on the street with the lower road classification. For example, the side street could be an arterial road and the primary a local road. In this case, it is typically better to allow curb cuts on the local rather than the arterial road, unless ATL DOT prefers otherwise.
replies

Laurel David Jan 24 2025 at 3:00PM on page 9

Suggestion
maybe state 10% of what?
replies

Laurel David Jan 24 2025 at 2:58PM on page 6

Question
for d, e and f - shouldn't ATL DOT be given priority in making these decisions?
replies
in reply to Louis Prevosti's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 23 2025 at 6:15PM on page 65

Answer
Thanks!
replies
in reply to Louis Prevosti's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 23 2025 at 6:10PM on page 65

Answer
No change is proposed from existing standards found in Sec. 74-43(c)(11.1), which allows multiple walls but each cannot exceed 6 feet in height. It has been rewritten and graphics added.
replies
in reply to Louis Prevosti's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 23 2025 at 6:08PM on page 67

Answer
Leland cypress will not be outlawed as part of the zoning code. This provision simply states that it may not be used to satisfy landscaping that is required by this code. Typically, required landscape includes street trees, buffer trees, etc. It does not include optional trees, such as on a private residential lot.
replies
in reply to Louis Prevosti's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 23 2025 at 6:06PM on page 67

Answer
Please note, this only requires to landscaping that is REQUIRED by the zoning ordinance, such as street tree plantings and required transitions (buffered); it would not apply to additional optional plantings. All of these types of activities already do, and will continue to, require landscape plans as part of permitting.
replies

Louis Prevosti Jan 22 2025 at 11:01AM on page 67

Question
Would Leyland Cypress be a columnar/fastigate species and thus not be allowed to be planted without the authorization of city arborists? How will this be enforced?
replies

Louis Prevosti Jan 22 2025 at 10:58AM on page 67

Question
A COA arborist told me that Leyland Cypress is an invasive species, but many developers like to use it because it is an inexpensive way to create a green screen. Will Leyland Cypress be officially deemed invasive and not be allowed?
replies

Louis Prevosti Jan 22 2025 at 10:54AM on page 65

Question
It is my understanding that under the current zoning, a maximum of two 6 feet retaining wall can be built on a residential property. Is Zoning 2.0 now allowing more than this? How many? Unlimited?
replies

Louis Prevosti Jan 22 2025 at 10:50AM on page 65

Suggestion
Great requirement!
replies
in reply to knorton123's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 16 2025 at 11:21AM on page 65

Answer
Correct, the new standard technically DOES apply to all districts. However, there are standards in most Form Districts that specify how high buildings along the sidewalk may be raised. These are more restrictive than this provision and would supersede it.
replies
in reply to dimmickph's comment

SiteAdmin Jan 16 2025 at 9:44AM on page 20

Answer
Correct. There is a parking requirement on paper only. Almost all R1-R4 is on a street with on-street parking, except major corridors.
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment

dimmickph Jan 14 2025 at 9:37AM on page 20

Question
Okay. I think I have it. The elimination of parking minimums enacted two years ago didn't change the underlying minimum found in the R-4 section of the code because of the exemption from the exemption in 16-36.001. The minimum in the R-4 code section didn't really mean anything because it was negated in most cases by 16.28.014(12) which eliminated minimum parking where there is a public street in front of the house. So you are just cleaning up the code by eliminating the parking requirement in the underlying zoning. Did I hear this correctly last night?
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment

knorton123 Jan 13 2025 at 4:04PM on page 65

This excerpt from Section 74.32 only appears to apply to R-1 through R-5, and does not appear to cover all zoning classifications. The proposed 8.4.6.C. appears to affect all zoning classifications.
replies
View all