Duplex and Tandem Development Community Workshop Presented by: Elisabeth Dang, AICP September 21, 2016
Staff presentation Agenda Overview Outreach to date Explanation of proposed code amendments Examples Comments from the public Comments from the MPB members Discussion of next steps
Development Types Front-to-Back Duplex Side-by-Side Duplex Tandem Courthome
Overview R-2A zoning district allows mix of single family, duplex and tandem development. R-2B zoning district allows all of the above, plus townhomes and small apartment buildings. This variety of housing choices creates diversity in household type, affordability, and architectural styles.
Neighborhood Characteristics Type R-2 Existing Units Growth - All Traditional City Districts 2012 2013 2014 2015 Single Family 5100 20 32 39 50 Duplex 2800 0 4 16 22 TH, MF 2800 6 30 42 8
Outreach MPB workshops in spring 2015 Online survey in spring 2016 384 responses Mixed results: Out of 20 units, most received a thumbs up rating of 40% to 60%. Individual meetings with residents and developers (ongoing)
Design Considerations Mass and Scale Parking Building Types Appearance Review Tandems vs Duplexes Lot Splits Colonialtown North Special Plan
Proposals Not Being Considered Reduce the number of lots where duplexes or tandems are allowed Could be considered a regulatory taking Alternative would be a citizen-led effort to rezone property to R-1, with notarized signature from each owner Require a public hearing for each duplex or tandem Not appropriate for a permitted use Alternative would be a citizen-led effort to create a historic district or a zoning overlay with a review board
Proposal #1a: On corner lots in R-2A, permit only tandems, not duplexes. Reason: Tandems reduce mass into two smaller buildings. MASS & SCALE
Proposal #1b: Require a canopy tree in the front yard. Reason: Reduce visual impact of building mass. Mitigates for trees lost during construction. Current code requires two canopy trees per lot, but they may both be in the rear. MASS & SCALE
Proposal #1c: Keep maximum floor area ratio (FAR) at 0.50 for duplexes, and require maximum FAR of 0.50 for single family. Reason: Maximum building size should be based on the lot size, not the use. Allowing single family to be larger than duplex could result in large a single family home with a garage apartment that is even bigger than a duplex. Today, most new single family does not exceed 0.50 FAR, so this is largely a preventative measure that will be useful if development trends change in the future. MASS & SCALE
Proposal #1d: Permit tandems wherever duplexes are allowed (except where overlays restrict). Increase the tandem rear setback from 15 to 20 feet. Reason: Allowing tandems on interior units will provide an alternative to duplexes that are more compatible with adjacent single family. Tandems are more likely than duplexes to be home ownership opportunities. Increasing the rear setback will more closely match a neighboring single family home. MASS & SCALE
Proposal #1e: Allow court homes (four units with a shared driveway) for tandems or duplexes. Reason: Reduce the number of driveways and create an interior court for parking. Mass of garages can be reduced by grouping them in the rear. MASS & SCALE
Proposal #2a: Change the maximum garage width for duplexes from 60% to 50% of the front facade. Reason: Single family must meet a maximum of 50%. All uses in the R-2 districts should meet the same standard. PARKING
Proposal #2c: Require a second parking space for each unit greater than 1500 sq. ft. (currently 2000 sq. ft.). Reason: Larger units generate more demand for parking. On small lots where there isn t room for 4 parking spaces, units will need to be smaller. PARKING
Proposal #2d: Prohibit tuning fork driveways. Reason: The Y shape results in the majority of the front lawn becoming a driveway. There is little room for landscaping. PARKING
Proposal #2e: Require garage to be set back at least 5 feet from the house. Reason: Visually reduces the impact of the garage. Allows extra driveway length to help prevent parked cars from overhanging onto the sidewalk. PARKING
Proposal #3a: Create an anti-monotony standard, prohibiting the same building from being constructed on two adjacent lots. Reason: Existing neighborhoods were built over time with a variety of housing styles. New development should also include variety, instead of looking like a subdivision. This is already required for most new subdivisions in Orlando. APPEARANCE
Proposal #3b: Units with a front loaded garage may not be a mirror image. Each unit must be differentiated from the other. Reason: Better differentiation between each unit helps to reduce the visual impact and provides more variety. The building can look more like a single family home. APPEARANCE
Proposal #3c: Administrative appearance review, with specific design guidelines. Guidelines will focus on creating a cohesive architectural style, and include a menu of options. Reason: Help new development better fit into context by being authentic to the architectural style chosen. APPEARANCE
Proposal #3d: Require a minimum 10% transparency (windows) for side walls. Require appearance review for side elevations. Reason: Side elevations can be seen from the street. When the architecture on the front is more decorative than the sides, it looks like a stage set. APPEARANCE
Proposal #3e: Allow design variances to all the previous standards. This provides an opportunity to propose a creative design or address site constraints, while giving the public an opportunity to review the proposal. Reason: Codes can t anticipate every possible future scenario. While most development can meet code, it s important to acknowledge that there will be exceptions. APPEARANCE?
Proposal #4a: Allow duplexes and tandems to be owned fee simple on two lots. Proposal #4b: Add standards for maintenance of common areas. Reason: Current code does not allow each unit on a separate lot. To sell units, some are split illegally, while others create 2-unit condominiums. Condos are cumbersome for such a small number of owners. ENCOURAGING HOME OWNERSHIP
Proposal #5a: In Colonialtown North, reduce FAR for duplexes, tandems and single family to 0.40 in R-2A Proposal #5b: Allow tandems wherever duplexes are allowed. (They are currently prohibited). Reason: Colonialtown North s existing housing stock is typically single story, less than 1500 square feet. The current special plan prohibits tandems, but the unintended consequence is that more duplexes have been built. Future development should maintain the smaller character of this area. COLONIALTOWN NORTH SPECIAL PLAN
Proposal #5c: Reduce the maximum size of a front porch encroachment from 8 feet to 6 feet, and allow only onestory porch encroahments (Currently, an upper floor can have a porch encroachment.) Reason: Colonialtown North s existing housing stock is typically single story. Second story porch encroachments can look out of scale. COLONIALTOWN NORTH SPECIAL PLAN
Examples If these standards are adopted, what will be allowed?
Front-to-Back Duplex
Side-by-Side Duplex, Rear Garage
Side-by-side Duplex, Front Garage 50 lot NOT RECOMMENDED: Garages too big. Separated driveways are too close. Tuning fork driveway not allowed.
Side-by-side Duplex, Front Garage 60 lot or wider Garage does not exceed 50% of front façade. Only one curb cut, meets max. width.
Corner Lot Duplex NOT RECOMMENDED: Duplex not allowed on corner lot in R-2A. Driveways too close.
Corner Lot Tandem
Front-to-Back Tandem
Would need minimum 70 foot wide lot for front facing garage. Other configurations possible for garages in the rear, or shared driveway. Side-by-Side Tandem
Can be tandem or duplex. Requires cross-access easement. Court Homes
Multiple Identical Units NOT RECOMMENDED: Two pairs of adjacent identical units. New code would require one to be different from the other.
Next Steps Public Comment MPB Discussion