×

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.

Module II Development Bonuses & Signs

Review and comment on the draft Development Bonuse and Sign standards.

These two Divisions of Module II contain the standards for density bonuses and signage. About half of the available density bonuses exist today and the remainder are new. Most of the sign standards are unchanged from existing standards but have been reorganized. You can learn more about both by watching this brief video.

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

Please comment by April 30, 2025, to ensure that your ideas are reflected in the Revised Discussion Draft Version 1 of the new Zoning Ordinace.  
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%
Comment Drag

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
in reply to AntonGudiswitz's comment

SiteAdmin May 1 2025 at 11:33AM on page 4

Answer
Thanks for the suggestion!
in reply to Marion Park's comment

SiteAdmin May 1 2025 at 11:32AM on page 86

Answer
Chapter 9 contains the administrative procedures. It can be reviewed here: link
in reply to AntonGudiswitz's comment

SiteAdmin May 1 2025 at 11:31AM on page 1

Answer
Thank you for your feedback.
in reply to AntonGudiswitz's comment

SiteAdmin May 1 2025 at 11:31AM on page 1

Answer
Thank you for your feedback.
in reply to Marion Park's comment

SiteAdmin May 1 2025 at 11:31AM on page 84

Answer
In the case of signs, it's the Director of the Bureau of Buildings. Otherwise, it's the Director of the Office of Zoning and Development.
in reply to Kelly in Edgewood's comment

SiteAdmin May 1 2025 at 11:28AM on page 12

Answer
Thanks. We will be updating the terms related to trees code-wide to align with the TPO.
in reply to Kelly in Edgewood's comment

SiteAdmin May 1 2025 at 11:27AM on page 11

Answer
Thanks for the recommendation!
in reply to Kelly in Edgewood's comment

SiteAdmin May 1 2025 at 9:50AM on page 2

Answer
A 99 year requirement would violate current state of George law regarding how long such requirements may apply.

AntonGudiswitz Apr 30 2025 at 1:55PM on page 4

Suggestion
As an additional incentive, can we add a bonus standard that reduces parking requirements by X spaces per small commercial space?

This would reduce building costs to help encourage small retail.

AntonGudiswitz Apr 30 2025 at 1:53PM on page 1

Suggestion
FAR bonuses should be higher, particularly for TOD and Affordable housing. There should basically be no density limits for housing at 60% AMI - we need housing, and if someone can make affordable housing pencil the city shouldn't stop them.

That said, FAR should already be higher in the base zoning.

AntonGudiswitz Apr 30 2025 at 1:37PM on page 1

Suggestion
1.0 FAR is not enough. We have very limited land near transit stops, so concentrating density there should be HEAVILY incentivized.

Marion Park Apr 30 2025 at 1:24PM on page 86

Question
Is Chapter 9 Administration in the current zoning code, and will it remain the same moving forward?

Marion Park Apr 30 2025 at 1:22PM on page 87

Director of Buildings or designee, okay

Marion Park Apr 30 2025 at 1:20PM on page 84

Question
Director?...Director of Zoning as in Director Holmes??

Kelly in Edgewood Apr 30 2025 at 12:58PM on page 12

Suggestion
Add "priority" trees

Kelly in Edgewood Apr 30 2025 at 12:57PM on page 11

Thank you for this effort to reduce light pollution. Please add full cutoff requirement as well.
in reply to Kelly in Edgewood's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 30 2025 at 12:47PM on page 1

Answer
Certainly. We are working with the draft TPO team!
in reply to Kelly in Edgewood's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 30 2025 at 12:45PM on page 4

Answer
Thank you for your input!

Kelly in Edgewood Apr 30 2025 at 12:43PM on page 2

Suggestion
Make it at least 99 years.
in reply to 404forever's comment

Kelly in Edgewood Apr 30 2025 at 12:34PM on page 1

Suggestion
Yes, AND if we allow building BIG near transit, we must raise the bar on sustainable site development and green buildings!

Kelly in Edgewood Apr 30 2025 at 12:25PM on page 4

Suggestion
Eliminate choice "a" or revise it to make it more progressively transit-oriented. For example, "Reduce total parking by at least half AND allocate at least 50% of on-site parking to be avaialble to the general public."
(Keep "b".)

Kelly in Edgewood Apr 30 2025 at 12:16PM on page 1

Suggestion
Ensure that this section and all others within Zoning 2.0 align with the new Tree Protection Ordinance's residential preservation standard and recompense fees that reflect market rate for replanting trees.

Jennifer Friese Apr 30 2025 at 9:41AM on page 1

Suggestion
I wish there were better protections in place for when a lot using these bonuses is near R1-R-5. I appreciate the THP and some landscape screening but I wish the same setback/THP was required for properties across the street as for adjacent lots. Being able to use the alley as part of the setback too offers little protection for those houses across an alley... I have the same wish in regard to receiving lots of TDRs near R1-R5...
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 28 2025 at 2:51PM on page 2

Answer
Thanks. We'll look into the discrepancy.
in reply to Eric Ganther's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 28 2025 at 2:49PM on page 1

Answer
Eric, thank you for your suggestion!

Eric Ganther Apr 28 2025 at 12:48PM on page 1

Suggestion
Suggestion, consider adding:

Atlanta Trail Network Connectivity - up to max bonus FAR varies by zoning district.

If the City can reserve an approved trail corridor by deed restriction or easement then the developer should get the maximum bonus for FAR.

A connected trail network crossing a particular parcel combines the value of "open space", "inter-parcel connectivity" and from a certain perspective "transit-oriented development" that substantially benefit ALL residents in a neighborhood, not just the residents of a particular parcel. As a valuable transportation alternative for an entire neighborhood, trails should receive the maximum bonus.


in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment

Jennifer Friese Apr 28 2025 at 8:24AM on page 2

Suggestion
Actually you may want to double check this, I think new density bonus papers may state 30 years
in reply to 404forever's comment

404forever Apr 23 2025 at 6:57PM on page 4

Good to know! Thanks for the correction.

Jennifer Friese Apr 23 2025 at 5:43PM on page 2

Suggestion
I'm glad these affordable units will be protected for 20 years.
in reply to 404forever's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 23 2025 at 4:28PM on page 4

Answer
Thanks for your comment. This is not entirely true, as the area within 1/2 mile of high-capacity transit already has parking maximums that limit the amount of parking that can be provided. These maximums will remain.

404forever Apr 23 2025 at 4:17PM on page 1

Suggestion
Transit is unsustainable without density, and density unworkable without transit. Increased FAR means more available housing units, increasing supply and lowering rents. Let’s make it appealing to build big near transit by increasing the FAR bonus.

404forever Apr 23 2025 at 4:14PM on page 4

Suggestion
50% is very high. This essentially means that if a developer wants x spots for tenants, they’d have to build 2x spaces! Why are we encouraging parking in our urban core near transit? I ask to remove the parking stipulation and simply add the density bonus near transit, or, at the very least, reduce it to below 25% mandated public parking.
View all