DUPLEXES AND TANDEMS PROJECT OVERVIEW Updated January 13, 2016 D E V E L O P M E N T T Y P E S Conventional single family, tandem single family, and duplex development are all permitted in the R-2A, R-2B, R-3A and R- 3B zoning districts. On a typical 50 by 110 lot, this yields the following typical development types. A note to residents: Many new homes are marketed as townhomes or condos. Regardless of the name used for the home, they are regulated in the zoning code according to the three housing types shown below. If three or more units are connected, they are regulated in the zoning code as attached development (townhome). Attached development is not allowed in R-2A, but is allowed in R-2B, R-3A and R-3B. Single family one unit on one lot. If the lot is big enough, may have second unit (accessory apartment) in the rear yard. Duplex two connected units on one lot Tandem two separate units with reduced setbacks on one lot (lot may be split)
Page 2 E X I S T I N G C ODE R E Q U I R E M E N T S 1. Residential Zoning Districts The City has a number of residential zoning districts that create a hierarchy of allowable uses. This analysis focuses on the R-2A and R-2B districts inside the Traditional City. The Traditional City is the portion of Orlando that was developed prior to World War II, and the City code includes specific design standards for the Traditional City Zoning Overlay (/T). The map at right shows the Traditional City boundary (in yellow) as well as R-2A (green) and R-2B (red) zoning districts. The R-1 districts (R-1, R-1A, R-1AA) allow single family homes, and may also allow an accessory apartment if the lot meets minimum size criteria. The R-2A district allows single family homes, accessory apartments, tandems and duplexes. The R-2B district allows everything in R-2A, plus attached single family (townhomes) and small multifamily buildings (up to 5 units). The R-3A and R-3B districts allow all the housing types in R-2B, plus multifamily. Most other office, mixed use corridor, and activity center zoning districts allow all of these uses as well. 2. Development standards for 2-family homes Duplexes in R-2A and R-2B have the following development standards: Minimum lot dimension: 50 x 110 (R-2A) and 50 x 100 (R-2B) Setbacks: 25 ft rear, 5 ft side, 15 ft street side and 25 ft (R-2A) or 20 ft (R-2B) front Accessory structure rear yard setback: 5 ft (single story), 15 ft (two story) Height limit: 30 ft. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 0.55 (R-2A) and 0.60 (R-2B) Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.50 Traditional City design requirements: Garage must be flush with or recessed from front façade and may not occupy more than 50% of the front façade, with an exception for duplexes that allows up to 60% of the front façade to be a garage if the design of the principal façade meets the other appearance review standards. A minimum 15% transparency is required on street facing façades. Appearance review is required. Tandems have the same standards as duplexes, with the following exceptions: Tandems are allowed only on corner lots or through lots (facing a street on the front and rear of the lot). A 10 ft building separation is required between the two units. The rear setback is reduced to 15 feet. Appearance review standard requires each unit to appear distinguishable and different from the other. Definition: Floor Area Ratio The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the square footage of a building divided by the square footage of the lot. Garages are not included in the building square footage. A 2,000 sq. foot house on a 50 x 110 lot yields an FAR of 0.36 (2,000/5,500). The purpose of FAR is to regulate the mass and bulk of a building in proportion to the size of the lot where the building is located.
Page 3 E X I S T I N G C ODE R E Q U I R E M E N T S 3. Development standards for single family homes Single family homes in R-2A and R-2B have the following development standards: Minimum lot dimensions: 40 x 110 (R-2A) and 40 x 100 (R-2B) Setbacks: 25 ft rear, 5 ft side, 15 ft street side and 25 ft (R-2A) or 20 ft (R-2B) front Accessory structure rear yard setback: 5 ft (single story), 15 ft (two story) Height limit: 30 ft. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): 0.55 (R-2A) and 0.60 (R-2B) Maximum FAR: None Traditional City design requirements: Garage must be flush with or recessed from front façade and may not occupy more than 50% of the front façade. A minimum 15% transparency is required on street facing façades. Appearance review is required. These standards allow for a great deal of variety in home design. Even on a small lot, it s rare for homes to cover the entire buildable area from setback to setback. Over the last 7 years, 60 single family homes were built in the R-2A and R-2B zoning districts. Of these, 6 exceed the 0.50 FAR limit that applies to duplexes. Most of the impacted homes with a high FAR are on small lots. 4. Appearance review The purpose of appearance review is to ensure that each home fits with the surrounding context and includes architectural elements, such as window type, roof form and building materials, that are consistent with one another. Appearance review does not require a specific architectural style. Each single family and 2-family home in the Traditional City undergoes appearance review by a trained urban design staff member as part of the building permit review. City code Section 62.300 identifies the factors for evaluation. These include: a. Conformance to the Code and the GMP (Growth Management Plan); b. Logic of design; c. Exterior space utilization; d. Attractiveness; e. Materials selection; f. Compatibility with surrounding properties; g. Circulation vehicular and pedestrian; h. Accepted architectural principles; i. Protection of property values; and j. Revitalization of depressed areas. Item h, accepted architectural principles is common knowledge to design professionals, but not always clear to others. Each architectural style has a set of elements that fit together to create a recognizable style. For example, a craftsman bungalow may include a wide front porch with columns that have a brick or stone base, vertically oriented windows with a 3-over-1 mullion pattern, and deep roof overhangs. A craftsman bungalow is unlikely to include a mansard roof or Corinthian columns. Staff comments generally focus on ensuring that these elements fit together well. The appearance review principles are not prescriptive and are open to interpretation. If an applicant disagrees with the comments of the Appearance Review Officer, he or she can ask for a Design Variance from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. 6. Parking Requirements City code requires a minimum of one parking space behind the front setback for single family and tandem units. For duplex units, one space is required if the unit is less than 2000 sq. ft. If a unit is greater than 2000 sq. ft. a second parking space is required. 7. Landscaping The landscaping code was recently updated. Current requirements for single family and duplex development are to provide a maximum of 60% turf grass, with the remainder as groundcover. Canopy trees (1 or more depending on the size of the lot) and street trees are also required. In lieu of planting street trees, payment into a street tree fund may be provided. If power lines are adjacent, understory trees are allowed. Many existing trees are located too close to power lines and must be taken out at the time of redevelopment. Two of the goals of the City s Greenworks Community Action Plan are to launch a comprehensive street tree initiative and to work with property owners to plant trees on private property to reach a City-wide goal of 40% shade coverage. These are both long-term initiatives that will help
Page 4 E X I S T I N G C ODE R E Q U I R E M E N T S mitigate the impact of tree removals. 8. Colonialtown North Special Plan As a result of concerns about redevelopment in the 1990s, in 2003 residents requested a lengthy list of design review standards. Several that were adopted are now included in the Colonialtown Special Plan Overlay. These include: Tandem development prohibited. Re-zoning to Planned Development in order to increase density is prohibited. Side yard setbacks in the R-1A district are flexible, provided that together they add up to 15 feet, and one side is at least 5 feet.
Page 5 T Y P E S OF 2 - FA M I LY H O M E S Side-by-side Duplex Advantages Allows both units to have a back yard. Neighboring single family homes are next to only one unit, not both. Disadvantages Garages occupy the majority of the front façade. Driveways are short, but wide, so they take up most of the front yard. Cars occupy most of the public realm between the building and the street. Two curb cuts (or one large curb cut) reduce available space for on-street parking and street trees. Front-to-back Duplex Advantages Looks more like single family from the street. Units can be different sizes, creating more variety. The garage for one or both units can be placed in the rear so they are less visible. There may be enough room on the lot for 2-car garages for one or both units. Disadvantages Rear unit may be perceived as less desirable. It s possible residents will prefer to park in the street instead of maneuver down a longer driveway.
Page 6 T Y P E S OF 2 - FA M I LY H O M E S Court Home Duplex Advantage Efficient driveway layout can preserve street trees and on-street parking Disadvantage Four units are built at once, so they may all look similar and appear to be multifamily Tandem Advantages Two buildings break up bulk and mass better than a single duplex building More similar to single family character Affordable home ownership option Disadvantages Rear unit may be perceived as less desirable. It s possible residents will prefer to park in the street instead of maneuver down a longer driveway.
Page 7 H I S T O R I C A L D E V E L O P M E N T P AT T E R N Duplexes have always been a permitted use in the R-2A and R-2B districts. Throughout the later 20th Century, infill development in Orlando s downtown neighborhoods consisted of a mixture of single family homes and duplexes. Whereas single family homes were marketed mostly to prospective homeowners, duplexes were aimed almost exclusively at the rental market. Therefore the unit sizes were much smaller, and the amenities and architectural details offered in these duplexes were much more spare than in a typical new single family home of the period. The photo below shows typical rental duplexes built in the 1970 s & 80 s, the so-called angle carport duplex. This duplex includes two 2-bedroom 1-bath units, each having 850 sq. ft. of floor area, for a total of 1700 sq. ft. overall. Since the typical new single family home built in the Traditional City during this same period (see below at left) was often a 3-bedroom 2-bath unit having 1200-1500 sq. ft., duplexes usually did not stand out in terms of their size, scale and massing. Partly as a response to concerns expressed by homeowners about rental duplexes, Orlando s Land Development Code (LDC) was amended in the early 1990 s to allow tandem dwellings (two separate single family homes on a duplex lot) by conditional use permit in R-2A & R-2B districts. In the first decade after their introduction 54 tandems were built in the Traditional City, mostly in the College Park and Colonialtown North neighborhoods. During the 1990 s builders began to discover a new market for duplexes aimed at prospective homeowners. At first, these new forsale duplexes were only rarely built as infill development in Orlando s downtown neighborhoods. Instead duplex builders purchased larger suburban tracts, usually in the unincorporated Orange County, and built subdivisions where the two units of each duplex were separated from each other as much as possible, often attached only by their respective utility sheds as shown in the photo at right. Since these new forsale duplexes were aimed at homeowners, each unit was usually 1500-1800 sq. ft. and included 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, a 1-or-2 -car garage (in lieu of a carport), upgraded amenities and improved architectural styling. Orange County s zoning ordinance requires a minimum 75x100 ft. lot for a duplex in the R-2 & R-3 districts. An 8000 sq. ft. lot with two 1800 sq. ft. units results in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.45, which is nearly twice as high as the FAR for a typical Orange County single family subdi- Two single family homes at left, two duplexes at right.
Page 8 H I S T O R I C A L D E V E L O P M E N T P AT T E R N vision however, since these new duplexes were built in their own subdivisions entirely separate from single family development they did not present any conflict with established neighborhoods. Each 75 ft. wide lot could be split into two 37.5 ft. lots so each home could be sold in fee-simple. Beginning in the late 1990 s and through the housing bubble of the 2000 s, however, Orlando s for-sale housing market boomed as prospective homeowners took a new interest in downtown living. Duplex builders soon recognized the untapped potential of this new market and began to purchase R- 2A and R-2B lots, often demolishing the small older homes on those lots to make way for this new for-sale duplex product. The typical size of each unit was by this time even larger than before, sometimes approaching or exceeding 2000 sq. ft. Orlando s code requires a minimum 50x110 ft. lot for a duplex in the R-2A district. This lot cannot be split, so each duplex must become a 2-unit condominium for sales purposes. The exception to this is Tandem Dwellings, where a lot split is permitted, and as a result applications for tandems also boomed in the late 1990 s. A 6000 sq. ft. lot with two 2000 sq. ft. units results in an FAR of 0.67. 2000 s era infill tandem dwellings in Orlando s Colonialtown neighborhood. The City reacted in two ways to the rapid influx of massive duplexes and tandems in established neighborhoods. First, in 2001 the LDC was amended to restrict the size of duplexes and tandems to a maximum FAR of 0.50. Second, tandems were restricted to corner lots only (where both units would have their own street frontage) but in a compromise, those corner-lot tandems became a permitted use (instead of a Conditional Use). Duplex developers reacted to these new regulations by gravitating toward corner lots, which are often larger than interior lots (thus allowing larger units) and have far more street frontage (thus facilitating a 2-car garage for each unit). Soon it seemed to neighborhood residents that nearly every street corner had been overtaken by large duplexes and tandems, and the City reacted by adopting special overlay districts where tandems are prohibited entirely. But the only result was more duplexes on those corner lots instead of tandems. With the collapse of the housing bubble in 2008-09, infill duplex and tandem development in Orlando s downtown neighborhoods came to an almost complete halt. However, the recovery of the housing market in 2013-15 has brought with it a new surge in this kind of infill development, and all of the related issues have returned.
Page 9 C O N C E R N S A B O U T 2 - FA M I LY H O M E S 1. Mass and scale of homes Homes in the R-2A and R-2B district date from the early part of the 20th century to today. Homes built prior to 1990 share common features that are somewhat different from more recent homes: they are smaller, more likely to be one-story homes, and less likely to have a 2-car garage. The maximum 0.50 FAR that applies to duplexes and tandems continues to allow large units in established neighborhoods. There are a number of oversized lots in R-2A and R-2B districts because historically some lots were split and sold to the owners on each side, resulting in a lot-and-a-half. Applying the 0.50 FAR standard to even a relatively shallow 75x120 ft. lotand-a-half results in a 4500 sq. ft. duplex. On a more typical 140 ft. deep lot the result is even larger: a 5250 sq. ft. duplex 2625 sq. ft. per unit. Many residents find these units out of scale and character with existing development. 2. Garage location and vehicle access Buyers of homes over 2000 sq. ft. nearly always demand a 2-car garage. On a duplex or tandem lot, two 2 -car garages add about 1000 sq. ft. to what may be an already large 4500-5250 sq. ft. duplex. The result can easily be a structure of over 6000 sq. ft. in a neighborhood where the surrounding older single homes average 1200 sq. ft. or less. Front-facing garages are a concern because they place this additional building mass at the front of the building where it is most visible to the surrounding neighborhood. Also, city code allows a maximum of 50% of the building frontage to be a garage, and the garage may not project in front of the rest of the building. For duplexes, there is an exception that allows up to 60% of the building frontage to be a garage. This exception has allowed side-by-side duplexes on fairly small lots and the garage becomes the dominant feature of the front façade. Further, when cars are parked in the driveway the entire front yard may appear to be occupied by vehicular space. This reduces locations for trees and landscaping. There are also concerns about the number, size and spacing of driveway curb cuts. Too many curb cuts can reduce available on-street parking and street tree opportunities. The City is considering future amendments to address these issues for single family, duplex and townhome development. In the meantime, current code limits on driveway spacing mean that new duplexes on standard sized lots are required to have one shared curbcut at the property line, a maximum of 18 feet wide (two cars wide). This can be a shared driveway, or split behind the front setback to create one single-car-wide driveway for each unit. 3. Condominium vs. fee-simple ownership Under the current city code, a duplex lot cannot be split into 2 fee simple lots. The legal way to create two owners is to establish a condominium. A 2 to 4 unit condominium can be a very inefficient ownership arrangement as compared to fee-simple ownership with a mandatory owners association. Condos can be expensive and clumsy to establish, and are treated very differently from a legal, insurance and taxing standpoint than fee-simple homes. Many new homeowners in these small condos have found it difficult to make the adjustment, and a few duplex builders have responded by splitting duplex lots even though this is not allowed by the code. The City has a goal to increase homeownership rates, and if condo-style development is too cumbersome, alternatives need to be considered. 4. Variety in architecture It is not uncommon for a duplex developer to buy 2, 3 or 4 lots in a row, and build up to 8 identical or similar duplexes. This creates the appearance of monotony and changes the face of a block more noticeably than building just one duplex. Many residents find the monotony unattractive and a negative impact to the character of the street. In new subdivisions, the City routinely applies an antimonotony condition that prohibits a developer from placing the same model home directly adjacent or across the street from one another. This promotes variety in architectural style, scale, and home ownership choices. A similar approach could be considered in the R-2A and R-2B districts. 5. Appearance review The City has appearance review standards inside the Traditional City that address the amount of windows, garage location, and general coherence of the architectural style. However, residents continue to find duplexes un-attractive and not in an architectural style that is compatible with adjacent homes. Historic districts have more specific requirements, but also require a public hearing for review of new buildings. Most R-2A and R-2B neighborhoods are not in a historic district, but residents have asked for additional neighborhood review. It s not clear how this can be accomplished unless a neighborhood votes to become a historic district. However, the City could consider adding some guidance to the staff-level appearance review that s already being done in the Traditional City. 6. Colonialtown North Colonialtown North is not a historic district, but the majority of homes in this neighborhood were built more than 50 years ago. Most homes are small, and many are on narrow streets. Few streets have an alley in the rear. Colonialtown North was one of the
Page 10 C O N C E R N S A B O U T 2 - FA M I LY H O M E S earliest neighborhoods to see redevelopment, and has consistently been among the most popular. The portion zoned R-2A is 195 acres, and 124 duplexes and tandems have been built since 1991. Compare this to the neighborhood with the second highest number of new units, College Park, which has more acres of land zoned R-2A or R-2B (245 acres) and has seen fewer units built 106 duplexes and tandems have been built over the same time frame. Partly in response to this development pressure, the Colonialtown North Special Plan was adopted in 2001. The City could consider changes to this special plan to establish standards specific to this neighborhood. Alternatively, if the code revisions that apply city-wide are sufficient, changes to the special plan may not be needed.
Page 11 A N A LY S I S OF D U P L E X E S A N D T A N D E M S C O N S T R U C T E D 1 9 9 1-2 0 1 4 City Planning Division staff analyzed City building permit and County property appraiser records for duplexes and tandems in Traditional City R-2A & R-2B districts for the years 1991-2014 to assess trends in location, size and type of infill development. Staff estimates that 59 duplex & 54 tandem units were built from 1991-2000, and 243 duplex & 35 tandem units were built from 2001-2010. No units were built in 2011-12, and 22 duplex units were built in 2013-2014. A spreadsheet showing all these units and the data supporting the following findings is available on request. The counts are per unit, not per lot. In some cases, there is an odd number of units, for example when adding a new tandem to an existing single family home. 1. Duplex condos & splits increased dramatically, but tandems decreased. Duplex condo development in Orlando s Traditional City increased from 39 units for the decade 1991-2000 to 197 units for the decade 2001-2010, but then came to an abrupt halt after the housing bubble burst with only none at all for the years 2011-12. Duplex rental development was 20 units from 1991-2000 and 46 units from 2001-2010. By comparison, tandem single family development dropped following the imposition of restrictions on the locations of tandem sites in 2001, from 54 units in 1991-2000 to 35 units in 2001-2010, and 0 units in 2011-2014. 2. Most duplex development focused on just a few neighborhoods. The specific neighborhoods where duplex development took place also changed over the course of the decade. This may be why residents in certain neighborhoods complained of being over-run by a sudden wave of duplex development. For example, during the 1990 s nearly all of this development type took place in just two neighborhoods College Park and Colonialtown North and consisted mostly of single family tandems. Therefore it should not be surprising that neighborhood complaints focused on tandems rather than duplexes, and the City reacted by imposing restrictions on the locations of tandem sites in 2001. However, the only result of these restrictions was that development from 2001-2010 consisted mostly of duplexes. Neighborhood 1991-2000 2001-2010 2011-2014 College Park 26 tandem, 14 duplex 11 tandem, 51 duplex 4 duplex Colonialtown North 25 tandem, 10 duplex 14 tandem, 69 duplex 6 duplex Milk District 10 duplex 44 duplex 4 duplex Lake Davis 3 tandem, 6 duplex 7 tandem, 26 duplex none Wadeview Park none 26 duplex 6 duplex Lawsona/Ferncreek 2 duplex 3 tandem, 13 duplex none Colonialtown South 8 duplex 8 duplex 2 duplex Eola Heights 9 duplex 2 duplex none Park Lake none 2 duplex none Lake Formosa none 2 duplex none 3. Single family tandem units have a much higher rate of home ownership than duplexes Of the 35 tandem single family units built from 2001-2010, 66% (23 units) were owner-occupied in 2013 according to Orange County Property Appraiser s records. And of 54 tandems built in the 1990 s, 63% (34 units) were owner-occupied in 2013. This rate of home ownership is statistically indistinguishable from that of non-tandem single family homes in the same neighborhoods. By contrast, of the 161 duplex condo units built from 2001-2010 for which ownership data was readily available, only 27% (43 units) were owner-occupied in 2013 (ownership data was missing for some duplex condo parcels due to a quirk in the City s database). And of 25 duplex condos built in the 1990 s with known ownership data, only one is owner-occupied today. There are 23 non-condominium duplexes (46 units) built from 2001-2010 i.e. duplexes where both units are in single ownership and which were built for that purpose. Most are rentals, but 6 of these duplexes (26%) were owner-occupied in 2013 a surprisingly high percentage of owner occupancy, especially as compared to the near-zero rates for duplexes built in previous
Page 12 A N A LY S I S OF D U P L E X E S A N D T A N D E M S C O N S T R U C T E D 1 9 9 1-2 0 1 4 decades. All of these owner occupied duplexes were custom-built homes, indicating that for people choosing this unit type and life-style, a custom home was critical. 4. Unit size & floor area ratio (FAR) characteristics 2001-2010 The following chart shows floor area trends for duplex and tandem units: 2001-2005 2006-2010 Less than 1500 sq. ft. 26 22.2% 4 2.5% 1500-1600 sq. ft. 5 4.3% 11 6.8% 1600-1799 sq. ft. 62 53.0% 83 51.6% 1800-1999 sq. ft. 19 16.2% 31 19.3% 2000 sq. ft. or more 5 4.3% 32 19.9% TOTAL 117 161 During both halves of the decade the majority of all units were 1600-1799 sq. ft. in area. However during the height of the housing boom from 2006-2009, smaller units under 1500 sq. ft. all but disappeared, whereas the largest units over 2000 sq. ft. increased from 5 units (4.3%) to 32 units (19.9%). 2001-2005 2006-2010 Less than 0.3 2 1.7% 1 0.6% 0.31 0.35 14 12.0% 4 2.5% 0.36 0.4 13 11.1% 27 16.8% 0.41 0.45 34 29.1% 23 14.3% 0.46 0.5 33 28.2% 60 37.3% 0.51 0.55 12 10.3% 28 17.4% Greater than 0.55 9 7.7% 18 11.2% TOTAL 117 161 FAR trends during this decade present a more complex picture. There is diversity in FAR range, however during 2006 to 2010, over 65% exceeded 0.45 FAR. Some units evaded the established 0.50 standard but given the possibility that square footage and/ or acreage of the site on the property appraiser s website may not exactly reflect what was in the building permit, units between 0.51 and 0.55 FAR may or may not have met the code. This analysis assumes that units greater than 0.55 FAR did exceed the code requirement. 5. Potential impacts of an FAR reduction and maximum square footage To determine how a proposed 0.45 FAR limit in the R-2A district might affect future duplex and tandem development, staff has looked at those units built from 2001-2010 that would have been affected by an FAR reduction, assuming those that evaded the established 0.50 FAR standard are assigned a maximum square footage equivalent to 0.50 FAR. In addition, there is a proposal for a maximum of 4000 sq. ft. per development site in R-2A and R-2B districts. While an individual unit could be larger, the other would need to be proportionately smaller, therefore this analysis looks at the impact of restricting units over 2,000 sq. ft. 2001-2005 2006-2010 Average Average Number Sq ft reduction Number Sq ft reduction Not impacted 76 0 54 0 0.45 FAR impact 38 126 87 124 2000 sq. ft. impact 3 67 13 62 Both FAR and sq. ft. impact 0 0 7 239 A 0.05 FAR reduction would impact approximately 35% of units built from 2001 to 2005 and 66% of units built from 2006 to 2010. However, the average reduction in square footage is approximately 123 sq. ft., which is the size of a small bedroom.