bubble to view comments.
Loading Glossary… SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 2:18PM on page 41
Answer
Thanks. We will look into this.
Atlanta's new Zoning Ordinance for the 21st century
×
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.
Log in to Add Comments
Log In
Not registered?
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 2:11PM on page 23
Answer
Good point. I think this is current code, but we will confirm this.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 2:10PM on page 10
Answer
It does not. it says if an approved alley exists or is proposed, then access should be provided. Many parts of the city are very suburban in form and lack alleys.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment
SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 2:05PM on page 10
Answer
This is intended to gently encourage the use of alleys, but provided easy relief, if not feasible, consistent with current practice. The Director would consider the suitability of the alley in rendering their decision.
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?
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.
Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 8:57PM on page 30
Suggestion
"lane"
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?
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?
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.
in reply to Patrick Ford's comment
SiteAdmin Feb 28 2025 at 7:41AM on page 21
Answer
Yes. They are. THANK YOU.
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.
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.
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?
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.
in reply to Laurel David's comment
SiteAdmin Feb 6 2025 at 3:14PM on page 53
Answer
Thanks. We will specify this.
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.
in reply to Laurel David's comment
SiteAdmin Feb 6 2025 at 1:43PM on page 65
Answer
Thank you for your feedback.
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.
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
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
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
Laurel David Feb 3 2025 at 11:44AM on page 58
Question
what is the difference between this and A2?
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
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.
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.
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.
in reply to Laurel David's comment
SiteAdmin Jan 28 2025 at 5:06PM on page 27
Answer
This will be updated. Thanks/
in reply to Laurel David's comment
SiteAdmin Jan 28 2025 at 5:04PM on page 20
Answer
Thanks for your feedback.
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!
in reply to Laurel David's comment
SiteAdmin Jan 28 2025 at 4:56PM on page 10
Answer
Great point. Thanks!
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.
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.
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
Laurel David Jan 24 2025 at 3:34PM on page 68
Question
Has this section been synchronized with the new tree preservation ordinance?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
Laurel David Jan 24 2025 at 3:00PM on page 9
Suggestion
maybe state 10% of what?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
How will this be enforced?
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?
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?
Louis Prevosti Jan 22 2025 at 10:50AM on page 65
Suggestion
Great requirement!
View all
Comments
Close