Broadway Ave. Staff Report to the Municipal Planning Board April 19, 2016 SUB2016-00006 Item #10 HIGHLAND HOMES REVERT TO PLAT Lake Highland Preparatory School E Marks St. Park Lake Location Map Subject Site S U M M A RY Applicant Amit Trehan, Owner Owner Amit Trehan Project Planner Jacques Coulon Updated: April 12, 2016 Property Location: 500 E Marks St. (south side of E Marks St., east of Kenilworth Ter., west of Cathcart Ter.), parcel #24-22-29-9080-00-310; ±0.28 acres, District 3). Applicant s Request: The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and construct separate houses on the two (2) originally platted 50 ft. wide lots, where City Code requires a minimum 55 ft. wide lot in the R-1/T zoning district. The property is located in the Lake Highland neighborhood. Staff Recommendation: Denial of the Revert to Plat request. Public Comment Courtesy notices were mailed to property owners within 300 ft. of the subject property the week of April 4, 2016. As of the mail-out of the staff report, staff has received one letter of support relative to the Revert to Plat request.
Page 2 FUTURE LAND USE MAP P/T/W Highland Ave. Broadway Ave. SUBJECT PROPERTY Park Lake Ct. Park Lake Park Lake St. Z O N I N G MAP Terrace Blvd. PUB-REC-INST Broadway Ave. SUBJECT PROPERTY E Marks St. Park Lake Ct. Highland Ave. Park Lake Park Lake St.
Page 3 P R O JECT ANALYSIS Project Description The applicant proposes to remove an existing single family house on a double lot to construct separate houses on the two (2) originally platted 50 ft. wide lots, where Code requires a minimum 55 ft. wide lot in the R-1/T/W zoning district (revert to plat). The property is located in the Lake Highland neighborhood. Previous Actions 1922: Property platted as two (2) 50 ft. wide lots as part of the Ways Addition Subdivision. 1950: Existing 1,926 sq. ft. single-family home with attached two car garage constructed. 07/2015: Property acquired by current owner. Adjacent uses, zoning and future land use designations are shown in Table 1 below. T A B L E 1 - P R O J E C T C O N T E X T Direction Future Land Use Zoning Adjacent Uses North East (Across E Marks St.) Residential Low Intensity (Public/recreational & Institutional) (Across Cathcart Ter.) Residential Low Intensity (RES-LOW) (Across E Marks St.) PD/T (Planned Development Lake Highland, Traditional City Overlay) (Across Cathcart Ter.) R-1/T (One-Family Residential, Traditional City Overlay) Lake Highland Preparatory School Single-Family Home South RES-LOW R-1/T Single-Family Home West RES-LOW R-1/T Single-Family Home Existing Zoning and Future Land Use The property is designated Residential Low Intensity on the City s Future Land Use Map, and is zoned R-1/T (One-Family Residential, Traditional City Overlay). Aside from the proposed 50-ft. nonconforming lot width, the proposed lots meet Code as illustrated in Table 2 at right. Reversion to Plat Proposed Use & Lot # Table 2 - Development Standards (R-1/T) Minimum Reqd./Proposed Lot Size (sq. ft.) Lot Dimensions (minimum/ proposed w. difference) Single-Family Homes 6,000 55 ft. x 110 ft. Lot 31 6,000 50 ft. x 120 ft. (-5 ft. w) Lot 32 6,000 50 ft. x 120 ft. (-5 ft. w) LDC Section 58.1152, Reversion to Original Plat, is as follows: When nonconforming residential lots are shown on a plat recorded prior to February 4, 1959, and any portion of two or more lots have been bound together by any action of a property owner to form a conforming building site, the property shall not be split and so as to revert to the original plat except in accordance with the standards provided in this subsection and the procedures provided in Chapter 65, Part 3G. As mentioned under Previous Actions, the subject property was platted prior to Feb. 4, 1959 as two (2) fifty (50) ft. wide lots and were bound together to form a conforming building site when a single-family house was constructed on the property in 1950. LDC Figure FG-1STD1.LDC now requires a minimum 55 ft. wide by 110 ft. deep lot under R-1/T zoning. Again, per LDC Section 58.1152: When an application for a reversion to the original plat is submitted, the applicant shall submit a boundary survey of the existing conditions of the property, conceptual site and landscaping plans, and conceptual elevations for future buildings on the site. As part of the review, the City shall analyze the predominant residential development pattern along both sides of the street on the same block face as the subject property excluding corner lots. A reversion to the original plat may be recommended for approval when more than 50% of the analyzed lots are non-conforming and the proposed reversion conforms to the standards and intent of the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. The applicant has provided the requisite boundary survey, conceptual site and landscaping plans and conceptual front elevations for the two (2) proposed single-family homes (see pages 9 through 11 of this report). Staff will typically look at the prevailing development pattern along both sides of the block face as the property in question. The bloc structure along E Marks St. does not lend itself to this analysis for several reasons. The only development on the other side of the block is Lake Highland Preparatory School, there are only 4 blocks along E. Marks St. located in the R-1/T zoning district and three are corner lots. Taking all of these items into account staff analyzed 2 blocks of development along E Marks St., including those corner lots facing E Marks. as well as along Cathcart Terr.. (see Table 3 on the following page). A total of 50 lots in the broader neighborhood were analysed and staff found that while the FAR for new homes is larger than most existing and older homes the average FAR is still much
Page 4 below the applicant requested 0.50. The average FAR for the neighborhood is 0.40; this includes lots in two zoning districts R- 1/T (34 lots) and R-2A/T (16 lots). Out of the 34 lots in the R-1/T zoning district 15 are nonconforming in either width or depth. While staff cannot recommend approval of the revert to plat application staff does not feel that the reverted lots and associated homes would be out of place in the neighborhood. Non-conforming Lot Requirements LDC Section 58.1152, Permitted Uses of Nonconforming Lots, states when a platted residential lot or Lot of Record is non-conforming in lot area, lot width, or lot depth, the following regulations shall apply (staff responses following in bold) A. Height. The maximum building height shall be two (2) -stories. Proposed homes will be 2 story homes. B. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The maximum floor area ratio shall be 0.50. Proposed FARs; both lots are currently shown as 0.50 (3,000 sq. ft.); staff recommends capping both buildings at 0.40 FAR (2,400 sq. ft.) to better match the surrounding neighborhood. Table 3 - E Marks St. and Kenilworth Ave. Block Face Comparisons R-1/T requires minimum 55 ft. (w) x 110 ft. (d) & 6,000 sq. ft. lot area House Living Area Garage Address Lot Area (sq. ft.) FAR Built (sq. ft.) Location Rear Lot 31 6,000 (50 w x 120 d) + 3,000 0.50 Side street Lot 32 6,000 (50 w x 120 d) + 3,000 0.50 Front Existing (bold signifies non-conforming lot width or depth) E. Marks St. & Kenilworth Ave.* 500 1950 12,004 (100 w x 120 d) 1,926 0.16 Side Street 610 Vacant 7,322 (61 w x 120 d) Vacant 0.00 N/A 844* 1940 12,004 (100 w x 120 d) 2,568 0.21 Rear 849* 2014 9,003 (75 w x 120 d) 6,369 0.71 Side Load Average 10,083 3,621 0.36 C. Location of Required Parking. All required parking spaces and garage door elevations shall be set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the principal facade of the principal building. For each lot, the combined width of all garage door(s) facing a street shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the combined width of all building elevations facing the same street. Garage accessory structures in the rear half of the lot shall not be included in this calculation, except when the garage accessory structure is located on a corner lot and faces a side street. Lot 31 will have a rear, detached garage loading off of the side-street and lot 32 currently indicates an attached garage recessed at least 5 ft. from the principal building facade. D. Appearance Review Required. Appearance Review shall be required pursuant to the requirements and procedures provided in LDC Section 62.300. E. Modification of Standards Prohibited. Modifications to development standards on nonconforming residential lots under Chapter 65 of this Code are prohibited. Only variances approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) shall be allowed. Per Table 3 above, there are four (4) lots on the E Marks St. block face within the R-1/T zoning district; all 4 lots are conforming, meeting the minimum 55 ft. lot width and 110 ft. lot depth requirements for R-1T/W zoning (100%). There are zero (0) nonconforming lots. As less than 50% of the lots are non conforming in regard to width, depth, or lot area this application does not meet the criteria set forth in LDC Section 58.1152. Relative to neighborhood compatibility, Growth Management Plan (GMP) Policy 1.1.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states In its consideration of land development applications and final development orders, the City shall protect viable and stable neighborhoods from uses not in keeping with their established character and use. The City's Land Development Regulations shall include standards which protect such neighborhoods from uses not in keeping with their established character and use, such as landscaping and buffering requirements, building height and bulk restrictions, and standards requiring setbacks and separation between uses. Staff interprets this policy as supportive of the revert to plat request as it is keeping with the established character and use of the existing neighborhood. The applicant has provided a proposed site and landscaping plan and front elevations for the two (2) new homes, should the revert to plat be approved.
Page 5 School Impacts - The revert to plat would re-establish an additional residential lot, and the addition of a new dwelling unit would result in a negligible increase to area school capacity. Thus, no further school impact analysis is needed. Findings/Recommendation The request is not consistent with the requirements for approval of a Revert to Plat as contained in LDC Section 58.1152, per the findings below: 1. The revert to plat request is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Code and with the City s adopted GMP; 2. The revert to plat would not have a significant adverse impact on the public interest; 3. The revert to plat would not overburden or otherwise adversely impact public facilities; and Based on the information provided in the staff report and the findings noted above, staff recommends denial of the 500 E Marks St. Revert to Plat. In the event that the Board determines otherwise, backup conditions are provided at the end of this staff report. E Marks St. Block Face (R-1/T zoning only) Summary - 4 lots along 2 blocks of E Marks St. and Cathcart Ter., with 0 (0%) homes developed on nonconforming lots in the R-1/T zoning district, this does not meet Revert to Plat criterion for staff support. Approval and redevelopment with two new homes would create 2 nonconforming lots, for 2 out of 4 (50%) non-conforming lots developed with homes.
Page 6 Table 4 - Broader Neighborhood Block Face Comparisons R-1/T requires minimum 55 ft. (w) x 110 ft. (d) & 6,000 sq. ft. lot area Existing (bold signifies non-conforming lot width or depth) Living Area Street Address House Built Lot Area (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) FAR 835 Cathcart Ter 1926 22474 (225 w x 100 d) 2,029 0.09 841 Cathcart Ter 1979 8987 (90 w x 100 d) 2,421 0.27 500 E Marks St 1950 12004 (100 w x 120 d) 1,926 0.16 610 E Marks St Vacant 7322 (61 w x 120 d) Vacant Vacant 614 E Marks St 2016 7682 (64 w x 120 d) 4,926 0.64 616 E Marks St 1938 6002 (50 w x 120 d) 2,489 0.41 620 E Marks St 1924 6002 (50 w x 120 d) 3,264 0.54 645 E Marks St 1925 16807 (105 w x 160 d) 4,009 0.24 647 E Marks St 1997 11205 (70 w x 160 d) 3,942 0.35 653 E Marks St 1930 9724 (72 w x 135 d) 3,555 0.37 703 E Marks St 1926 7158 (53 w x 135 d) 2,786 0.39 812 Kenilworth Ter 1952 7280 (71 w x 100 d) 1,448 0.20 813 Kenilworth Ter 2006 10709 (72 w x 150 d) 5,262 0.49 817 Kenilworth Ter 1923 6739 (45 w x 150 d) 1,330 0.20 818 Kenilworth Ter 1950 6296 (65 w x 100 d) 2,316 0.37 821 Kenilworth Ter 1924 6739 (45 w x 150 d) 2,658 0.39 822 Kenilworth Ter 1950 7188 (70 w x 100 d) 1,648 0.23 825 Kenilworth Ter 1927 6738 (45 w x 150 d) 1,797 0.27 826 Kenilworth Ter 1925 6295 (63 w x 100 d) 904 0.14 829 Kenilworth Ter 1955 8977 (60 w x 150 d) 2,228 0.25 834 Kenilworth Ter 1918 6595 (66 w x 100 d) 2,522 0.38 835 Kenilworth Ter 2008 8989 (60 w x 150 d) 6,651 0.74 839 Kenilworth Ter 1952 8982 (60 w x 150 d) 1,729 0.19 840 Kenilworth Ter 1998 5085 (51 w x 100 d) 4,739 0.93 844 Kenilworth Ter 1940 12004 (100 w x 120 d) 2,568 0.21 849 Kenilworth Ter 2014 9003 (75 w x 120 d) 6,369 0.71 409 Park Lake Ct 1926 (x2) 19681 (135 w x 140 d) 6,206 0.32 846 Park Lake Ct 2010 6749 (50 w x 135 d) 5,881 0.87 847 Park Lake Ct 1945 20828 (125 w x 135 d) 3,997 0.19 852 Park Lake Ct 1928 (x2) 10124 (75 w x 135 d) 6,158 0.61 853 Park Lake Ct N/A 12048 (75 w x 135 d) Vacant Vacant 856 Park Lake Ct 1920, 1928 19574 (150 w x 135 d) 6,062 0.31 858 Park Lake Ct 1928 11400 (95 w x 120 d) 6,352 0.56 862 Park Lake Ct 1927 19558 (161 w x 120 d) 3,638 0.19 R-1/T Average 3,557 0.38
Page 7 G O O G LE SITE PHOTOS View from E Marks St. Looking South at Existing Home View from Cathcart Ter. Looking East at Existing Home
Page 8 A E R IAL PHOTO SUBJECT PROPERTY
Page 9 E X ISTING BOUNDARY SURVEY Lot 9 Recommend with a Rear-Detached Garage
Page 10 P R OPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAN Lot 31 Lot 32
Page 11 P R OPOSED ELEVAT IONS LOT 31 Front Elevation From E Marks St. Street Side Elevation From Cathcart Ter.
Page 12 P R OPOSED FRONT ELEVATION LOT 32 Note: Lot 9 Staff Recommending Rear Detached Garage, an updated elevation was requested but not available at time of this report.
Page 13 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - REQUIRED Land Development 1. Maximum FAR - In order for the proposed houses to blend with the existing neighborhood development pattern, the maximum living area of the houses, as provided in this report, shall not exceed 2,400 sq. ft. living area (FAR of 0.40) 2. Consistency with Staff Report - Building permits shall match the general development plan and building elevations for the two (2) new homes provided in this staff report. Modifications to the site plan not meeting Code shall require approval of variance prior to permitting. 3. Appearance Review - Since the properties are in the Traditional City Overlay and will be nonconforming lots, an Appearance Review shall be conducted at time of permitting to ensure that the proposed homes are generally consistent with the site plan and front elevations provided in the report. 4. Permits shall be required for the removal of any trees per LDC Sec. 60.209 Urban Design Community Planning staff has no recommendation about whether the lot split is appropriate (it doesn't seem to match the surrounding block to create nonconforming lots). City Surveyor The Boundary Survey will need to be submitted as a hard copy signed and sealed Revise MTS to Standards of Practice language. The CL tie looks to be West R/W of Ivanhoe Ave The sidewalk along the north end of Lots 31 & 32 IS on private property. Transportation Planning A Sidewalk shall be required along Cathcart Terr. Adjacent to the site. INFORMATIONAL Land Development Except as provided herein, the proposed revert to plat and subsequent site redevelopment is subject to all codes and ordinances of the State of Florida, City of Orlando, and all other applicable state regulatory agencies. All applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencing redevelopment of the site. Urban Design The elevations will require appearance review; it is preferred that a traditional city style is selected and reviewed as part of an appearance review prior to the permitting process. Contact Terrence Miller at Terrence.Miller@cityoforlando.net or 407.246.3292 to receive further guidance the appearance review styles acceptable. Police The Orlando Police Department has no objections to the revert to plat request for Lake Highland Homes located at 500 E. Marks St. A CPTED plan review is not applicable to this project at this time. We encourage developers and property owners to incorporate CPTED strategies in their projects. A brochure entitled Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Your Guide to Creating a Safe Environment, which includes crime prevention techniques for various land uses, is available by email. Building Building Plan Review is not applicable to this case at this time.
Page 14 Fire There are no objections to this request. Please be reminded. Every building constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of access roadways with all-weather surface of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width, adequate roadway turning radius, capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus, and having a minimum vertical clearance of 13 ft. 6 in. [NFPA 1: 18.2.3]. Growth Management Orlando Land Development Code Part 7 serves to implement the Growth Management Plan by setting forth restrictions on the use of land for activities which do not conform to its provisions and procedures by which the gradual elimination of nonconformities is pursued. The subject property is designated Residential Low Intensity on the Orlando Future Land Use map with R-1 zoning in the Traditional City. These designations are compatible with surrounding land use designations. The proposed single family developments are compliant with maximum density requirements of 7 dwelling units per acre. LDC Sec. 58.1152 permits a maximum residential floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50. The prosed FAR for each single family development is 0.50. Again, the GMP aims to gradually eliminate nonconformities, however given permission authorized by LDC Sec 58.1152 and compliance with density/intensity of the FLU and zoning, the Comprehensive Planning Studio will not object to the proposed development. OUC Water regarding requests to establish new or modify existing electric, water or convenient lighting services. Please be advised that OUC approval is subject to respective reviews and approval by OUC Water, Electric and Lighting. Please submit detailed utility construction plans to OUC's Development Services email address: DevelopmentServices@ouc.com Additionally, please refer to the OUC Pre-Application Checklist for City of Orlando Permits. Transportation Planning TPL has no conditions or comments for this case. Waste Water Each newly created lot shall have its own lateral connection to the sanitary main. CONTACT INFORMAT I ON Building For questions regarding Building Plan Review issues contact Don Fields at (407) 246-2654 or don.fields@cityoforlando.net. Growth Management For questions, contact Wes Shaffer at 407-246-3792 or at Thomas.shaffer@cityoforlando.net. Land Development For questions, contact Jacques Coulon at 407-246-3427 or at jacques.coulon@cityoforlando.net. Police For questions regarding Orlando Police Department plan reviews or to obtain a copy of the brochure, contact Audra Nordaby at 407.246.2454 or Audra.Nordaby@cityoforlando.net. Survey If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ken Brown at 407.246.3812 or at ken.brown@cityoforlando.net; or contact Richard Allen at 407.246.2788 or at Richard.allen@cityoforlando.net. Transportation Planning & Transportation Impact Fees For questions, contact Nancy Ottini at 407-246-3529 or at nancy.ottini@cityoforlando.net. Urban Design For questions, contact Terrance Miller at 407.246.3292 or at Terrence.Miller@cityoforlando.net.
Page 15 R E V I E W /AP P R O VA L PROCESS-NEXT STEPS 1. Minutes from the April 19, 2016 MPB meeting are scheduled for review and approval by City Council on Monday, May 23, 2016. 2. Following the City Council approval of the MPB meeting minutes, the applicant can apply for a demolition permit and request a lot split through the Orange Co. Property Appraiser s (OCPA) Office. 3. Building permits may be submitted following the MPB meeting but cannot be approved until the City Council approves the May 23 MPB meeting minutes and the Council minutes are posted.