Notes on Draft 3 (updated)

The below "Draft 3.5" contains notes about changes that have been discussed but not finalized
since the Draft 3 review meeting on August 13:

DRAFT 3.5

Draft 3.5 outline

Updated Meeting Notes from Draft 3 Review and Q&A
August 13, 2024, 7pm via Zoom
Aaron Fortner, our consultant, and Elizabeth Clappin from the Historic Preservation Studio staff were present to help answer questions.
​
A followup presentation at the CPNO Meeting on August 19 included a discussion of a number of the above updates as well as illustrations for more points and proposals. Click the link above for Slides and the Zoom Recording when it is available.

Aaron F. went through Draft 3 from the beginning, paying particular attention to updates in the draft since Draft 2. Questions were taken and discussed along the way. Here were the primary updates and discussion points:

• Period of significance was updated to end in 1945 (changed from 1955) as this reflects when the majority of the neighborhood was developed, the updated map with draft Contributing/Noncontributing status can be found on HistoricCandlerPark.org
• Overlay district - this is an overlay district meaning  ... (continued after the drop)

• Overlay district - this is an overlay district meaning that these regulations would be in addition to the underlying Zoning and will supercede the underlying Zoning regulations (now and future) where they are in conflict. For example, if the HD Regs say the Lot Coverage is 50% but the underlying Zoning says 55%, 50% is the rule. If HD Regs say a max of 2 ADUs are allowed, then that is the rule, no matter what the underlying zoning says or is changed to. But if the HD Regs do not mention something, say, FAR (floor area ratio), then the underlying Zoning regulation on FAR still rules. (continued after the drop)
• Certificates of Appropriateness (COAs) explained:
  • Because the HP staff at the City (and not the Office of Buildings) are the keepers of our special regulations, they know the specificities of our regulations best and typically have to sign off on building permits that propose exterior work before the Office of Buildings issues the permit.
  • If NO COA is needed, the staff will sign off on the permit application within 1 day and the permit process will continue at the Office of Buildings staff.
  • Staff Review (within 14 days) will be required for additions and alterations that affect only the front facades and front roof planes of Contributing structures.
  • And for new construction/additions to ADUs (this is due to the special regulations for ADUs contained in the HD that are different from the underlying Zoning)
  • Urban Design Commission (UDC) review will be required for New primary structures, variances, and any demolition requests.

Question: I thought this prevented Demolition?? Demolition of a Contributing structure is not easy, but there is an avenue to request demolition if needed. Special attention will be paid to houses that are significantly lost due to a catastrophic event like a fire or tree fall. 

DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS
these are regulations that are already found in the Zoning Code and apply to all New Construction (existing buildings are, as in any zoning change, fine as they are), this was put into the preferred table format for this Draft a few items added:

• Front yard setbacks - front yard setbacks shall align with existing historic buildings on the blockface (no smaller than the smallest and no larger than the largest) – this is one of the regulations that goes a long way in helping new construction “fit in” with its neighboring houses, by it being in line with the other houses on the block. 
• Side yard setbacks - may either match the existing house, match another historic house on the block (compatibility rule) or abide by the underlying Zoning (7 feet on each side) - this provides greater flexibility in where a house sits on the lot (side to side) which is helpful when it comes to additions and new construction. There was some concern that this would allow houses to be too close to one another. We will check the Zoning code to see what other regulations affect the space between neighboring buildings. 
• Rear yard setbacks for principal structures - 7 feet, this matches the current R5 regulation and will be helpful for a number of particularly small lots throughout Candler Park.

• Accessory structures setbacks (including sheds, garages, or dwelling units) - 5 foot side and rear setbacks - these have a separate set of setbacks, as you can imagine, they are typically smaller buildings and you wouldn’t want your shed or garage in the middle of the backyard. 

Question: “Zoning 2.0 is proposing 4 feet rear and side setbacks for accessory structures, why can’t we have 4 feet?”  True! also, the current rear and side setbacks from accessory structures in R5 is 4-feet. We will change to match the Zoning.

• Lot Coverage - throughout the district is 50% - this matches what we currently have for R4 and R5C and protects that regulation into the future (for example, Aaron noted that our customized R5C will likely go back to regular R5 when Zoning 2.0 goes into effect)
• Building Heights - this is new to Draft 3 but was included as building height is key in helping new construction “fit” more with its historic neighbors in size and scale (not design). The proposal uses the compatibility rule, but recognizing that we at least want people to be able to add a 2nd story to a house, a minimum of 24-feet as the mx height was proposed. With the typical 10-foot plate height of existing bungalows, this would allow for a perfect 2-story addition. 

Question: a number of comments and questions indicated that this appears to be too low to most people and will be changed. 
Question: “What if an act if God destroys a Non-Contributing house that does not conform to the HD regulations (say it is taller than the regs allow) — could it be built back just as it was??” In the meeting, Elizabeth C. mentioned that this would be an “existing nonconformity” — After further clarification after the meeting: Yes, the current zoning code (Chapter 24), discusses existing nonconformities and the right to build back to the specs that were there before even if it no longer conforms to the property’s regulations as long as it does not create a greater nonconformity (say, even taller). Our HD regs would not change this but we can reference “existing nonconformity” regulation in zoning to provide extra clarity.

DESIGN STANDARDS
This section affects only the front facades of Contributing structures. There has been language added here in Draft 3 to provide needed clarification rather than simply “in keeping with the existing architectural style” that we started out with!

• Retain existing architectural features - this section notes typical architectural features or elements of front facades that, if present, help give a building its identity such as the design of the window trim or siding, porch columns, eaves, and details like brackets, vents and small windows. These elements should not be destroyed but may be repaired or replaced in new material as long as the basic design is kept.
• Dormer and Gable additions - this section is provided to clarify that dormers and new gables ARE allowed as these are common ways to expand 2nd floor space in a house. Any additions such as dormers or new gables on the front facade/front roof plane should be consistent with the architectural design of the front of the house (windows, architectural details, and ornamentation)
• Roof plane extensions as well are allowed - on buildings with a side-gabled roof, the roof may be extended to provide greater height for a 2nd floor addition. This, combined with a front gable is not an uncommon way to add a nearly full 2nd floor addition to a home.
• 2nd floor additions - full 2nd floor additions with exterior walls aligned with the 1st floor on all elevations are allowed. The regulations essentially enshrine what most homeowners do when adding a 2nd story already. These rules help ensure that the original house form is not disguised or obscured by the addition of a 2nd story, that one can still look at it and “read” the original house:
  • The 2nd floor should not be taller than the 1st floor
  • The existing eave or cornice lines of the buildings must be retained - creating a clear distinction between the original house and the 2nd floor addition. Again, this only affects the front facade.
  • The roof form should match the original principal roof if it affects the front facade.
  • Again, as previously mentioned, when on the front, architectural details like windows, trim and ornamentation should match the design of the existing house.

At the end of the meeting Emily provided some images to illustrate some of the Design Standard regulations on what would and would not be allowed. The followup presentation at the CPNO Meeting on August 19 included a discussion of a number of the above updates as well as illustrations for more points and proposals. Click here for the Slides and Zoom recording for the CPNO meeting.