staff report to the municipal planning board tem march 17 ......much more spare than in a typical...

Description of the Request:

Revise Land Development Code Chapter 58

Figure 1; Chapter 58 Parts 3C, 3D, and 3E; Sec-

tion 62.492; Chapter 65 Parts 3B, and 5E, and

Section 66.200 to address requirements for du-

plex and tandem development Citywide and in

the Colonialtown Special Plan, and delete re-

quirements for average lot and cluster develop-

ment, which are obsolete.

Staff’s Recommendation:

Approval of the requests.

S U M M A RY

Owner

N/A

Applicant

City of Orlando

Project Planner

Elisabeth Dang, AICP

Staff Report to the

Municipal Planning Board

March 17 , 2015

DUPLEXES AND TANDEMS

L D C 2 0 1 4 - 0 0 3 6 3

I T E M # 1 0

Public Comment

Because the adoption of this ordinance could af-

fect all of the City of Orlando, no notices have

been mailed. Staff posted this item on the City’s

Bulletin Board, the City’s web site, and place a

classified ad in the Orlando Sentinel. Staff has

met individually with several duplex developers

and residents over the last year. Staff also sent

copies of this report to 9 people who requested

follow-up. One phone call and several emails

have been received as of the date of the Staff Re-

port.

Updated: March 9, 2015

D E V E L O P M E N T T Y P E S

Single family—one

unit on one lot

Duplex—two con-

nected units on one lot

Tandem—two separate units

with reduced setbacks on

one lot (lot may be split)

Conventional single family, tandem

single family, and duplex develop-

ment 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 develop-

ment types.

DRAFT LDC2014 -00363—Duplexes and Tandems

The 21st Century has brought a dramatic change in the type, style and scale of in-fill duplex development in Orlando’s “Traditional

City”, generally located east of Orange Blossom Trail, west of Bumby Avenue, south of the City limits and north of Michigan Street.

This change resulted in a new kind of duplex that our land development regulations never contemplated and were unprepared to

properly regulate.

Duplexes have always been a permitted use in the R-2A and R-2B districts of the Traditional City. Throughout the later 20th Cen-

tury, 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 fam-

ily 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 such Tandem Dwellings were built in the Traditional

City, mostly in the College Park and Colo-

nialtown North neighborhoods.

During the 1990’s builders began to dis-

cover 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 “for-sale” duplexes were aimed

at homeowners, each unit was usually 1500

Two single family homes at left, two duplexes at right.

B A C K G R O U N D


-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 Ra-

tio (FAR) of 0.45, which is nearly twice as high as the FAR for

a typical Orange County single family subdivision – 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 Traditional City for-sale hous-

ing 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 pur-

chase 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 LDC 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.

The City’s current regulations do not include garages in the FAR calculation, but these garages add to the apparent mass and size of

each duplex. If two 250 sq. ft. 1-car garages are added to the calculation the FAR becomes 0.75. If the surrounding older single fam-

ily homes average less than 1200 sq. ft and do not have garages – which is typical – each new for-sale duplex is nearly four times the

size of its single family neighbors. Such duplexes can only be described as out of character with the surrounding 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 cor-

ner lots only (where both units would have their own street frontage) but in a compromise, those corner-lot tandems became a per-

mitted 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 more massive units) and have far more street frontage (thus facilitating a 2-car

garage for each massive unit). Soon it seemed to neighborhood residents that nearly every street corner had been overtaken by mas-

sive 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 2013-14 has brought with it a new surge in this

kind of infill development, and all of the related issues have returned.

2000’s era infill tandem dwellings in Orlando’s

Colonialtown neighborhood.


Side-by-Side Duplexes and “Court Homes” – Where

the two units of a duplex are placed one behind the

other, the building can be designed to appear from

the street as a single family home. However, where

the two units are placed side-by-side the building

appears to be a 2-unit townhouse, out of character

with its surroundings, and all the mass of the build-

ing is placed at the front of the lot. If two or more

side-by-side duplexes are built together, it gives the

appearance of a townhouse development in a

neighborhood of single family character.

Where two front-to-back duplexes or tandems are

built side by side (4 units total), it is often most effi-

cient to serve all four units from a single driveway

placed between the two duplex buildings. However,

this arrangement also gives the appearance of a 4-

unit apartment complex served by a single driveway

and parking lot. This is also not appropriate in a

neighborhood of single family character.

Stacked units, with one unit over the other, are rare

but do occur. It is not feasible to split such units as

separate fee-simple lots, however they are allowed

by the code.

Side-by-side Duplex: Looks like a townhome

Front-to-back Duplex: Looks more like single family

Court Home Duplex Pair: Looks like multifamily Stacked Duplex: one unit above the other

1415 E Harding

S U M M A RY O F I S S U E S


Mass & Scale – The imposition of a maximum 0.50 FAR has not has

not adequately controlled the mass & scale of duplexes in established

neighborhoods. In the Traditional City there are a surprising number of

oversized lots, especially where a lot has been split and sold to the own-

ers on each side, resulting in a “lot-and-a-half.” Applying the 0.50 FAR

standard to even a relatively shallow 75x120 ft. lot-and-a-half results in

a 4500 sq. ft. duplex. On a more typical 140 ft. deep lot the result is a

massive 5250 sq. ft. duplex – 2625 sq. ft. per unit.

The maximum impervious surface area (ISR) is 55%. For some lots, this

may impact maximum building size. However, in most cases FAR will

be the determining factor. For example, a lot that is 50’ by 150’ is al-

lowed a maximum 3,750 sq. ft. (0.5 FAR) today, or 3,375 sq. ft. (0.45

FAR) under the proposed code revision. For a typical two-story duplex,

the footprint is 2,000 sq. ft., or 0.26 ISR. This leaves over 2,000 sq. ft.

available for a garage, driveway, patio or other hardscape feature.

Garages – Buyers of homes over 2000 sq. ft. nearly always demand a 2-

car garage – in fact, Orlando’s LDC requires two parking spaces for

single family homes of this size (including tandems). On a duplex or

tandem lot, two 2 -car garages add about 1000 sq. ft. to an already mas-

sive 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 especially

troubling since they place this additional building mass at the front of

the building where it is most visible to the surrounding neighborhood.

This is most true on corner lots, where all nearly all garages must be

front-facing.

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 develop-

ment. 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.

Appearance Review – In an effort to allow these new unit types to fit

into established neighborhoods of single family character, the City has

from the start required that tandem dwellings undergo Appearance Re-

view as part of the approval process. However, duplexes have not been

held to the same standard. Instead, the City has used the review powers

offered by the Traditional City overlay district to “make do” in the re-

view of duplexes. This form of design compliance review has not been

adequate.

Condominium vs. Fee-Simple Ownership – A 2-4 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 Orlando’s LDC. The result is that the City is confronted with illegally-split lots as a fait accompli.


Recommendation Purpose

Establish FAR for all uses (duplexes, tandems &single

family) at 0.45 in R-2A, 0.50 in R-2B district.

Reduce the mass & scale of infill development in established

neighborhoods.

Establish maximum floor area of 4000 sq. ft. for all uses

(duplexes, tandems & single family) and maximum 2200

sq. ft. for an individual tandem or duplex unit.

Limit the mass & scale of infill development in established

neighborhoods.

Clarify setbacks for accessory cottage and garage apart-

ment units, and state that such units are not allowed on a

duplex or tandem development site.

The R-2A zoning district allows a maximum of two units per

lot. An accessory unit is not allowed where two units are

already built.

Limit duplexes & tandems to 2 stories in the R-2A Dis-

trict.

Reduce the mass & scale of duplexes & tandems in estab-

lished R-2A neighborhoods.

Allow duplexes & tandems to be sold and owned in fee

simple by platting or lot split. Establish a procedure for

duplex plats & lot splits with standards for maintenance

of common improvements.

The City now allows fee-simple ownership of townhomes in

Attached Dwelling Developments. Prevent illegal lot splits

and apply proper standards.

Create 3 subtypes of duplex dwellings: Front To Back

Duplexes, Side By Side Duplexes, & Court Homes. Do

not permit Side By Side Duplexes and Court Homes in

the R-2A District. Allow them in the R-2B district.

Side By Side Duplexes have the character of townhomes.

Court Homes have apartment character. Front To Back Du-

plexes look more like single family. R-2A districts are in-

tended to preserve single family character in neighborhoods.

Permit tandem dwellings in R-2A & R-2B districts wher-

ever duplexes are permitted, except where HP or SP dis-

tricts restrict. On corner lots in the R-2A district permit

only tandems, not duplexes.

Tandem dwellings have the character of single family homes

and should be preferred to duplexes in established neighbor-

hoods.

Change tandem rear yard setback from 15 feet to 20 feet

and require a minimum 10 ft. separation between units.

Make tandems more compatible with their surroundings.

Prohibit detached garages & carports if the FAR exceeds

0.35 or the GFA exceeds 3000 sq. ft. In such cases,

maximum size of accessory structure is 150 sq. ft.

Detached 2-car garages and carports and their driveways

consume large portions of rear yards, rendering them unus-

able.

Increase side yard setback for duplex or tandem rear

units to 7.5 ft in R-2A, except that garages with no living

space above may be set back 5 ft.

Reduce the mass of the rear units of front to back duplexes

& tandems.

Add minimum 10% transparency standard for side walls. Eliminate blank walls.

Require appearance review for duplexes & tandems, and

establish standards for appearance review (similar to

what now applies to tandems).

Improve the design and compatibility of duplexes in estab-

lished neighborhoods.

Allow variances to design compliance standards through

the Design Variance process. For other standards use

regular variance process.

Allow for site-specific exceptions to the requirements for a

demonstrated hardship through the variance process.

Delete provisions for “average lot” and “cluster develop-

ment.”

These types of housing have not been proposed by develop-

ers in many years and are obsolete.

S U M M A RY O F R E C O M M E N D E D A M E N D M E N T S :

D U P L E X A N D TA N D E M D E V E L O P M E N T


Recommendation Purpose

Reduce FAR to 0.35 for single family homes & duplexes

in the R-2A district, 0.45 in R-2B District (not counting

accessory units).

Bring the mass & scale of new construction into line with

the established character of the neighborhood.

Allow tandems with Max. FAR 0.35. Tandem dwellings have single family character and should

be preferred to duplexes in the Colonialtown North

neighborhood.

Limit the floor area of accessory cottages and garage

apartments to 700 sq. ft. – but don’t count toward allow-

able FAR.

Reduce the mass of accessory units. Prevent the conversion

of accessory units into tandems.

Continue to allow front yard porch encroachments, but

limit to 6 feet depth. Prohibit 2-story porch encroach-

ments.

Bring the mass & scale of new porches into line with the

established character of the neighborhood.

Require design compliance review for all new construc-

tion & exterior alterations (single family & duplexes)

Improve the design and compatibility of new construction in

the Colonialtown North neighborhood.

Require “active driveway – no parking” signs for shared

& rear-unit driveways.

Reduce front-unit visitor parking that blocks access to rear

units.

The Colonialtown North neighborhood, generally located north of W. Colonial Drive, east of Mills Ave, west of Bumby Ave, and

south of Nebraska Street has a special plan overlay that was adopted in 2003 to address concerns about infill development. The over-

lay prohibits tandem development, which has not slowed the pace of infill development, but has instead shifted the character from

tandems to duplexes. As shown in the attached analysis, duplexes are less likely to be owner-occupied and recent construction looks

more like multifamily or townhome development than single family. This proposed amendment is intended to promote single family

character by removing the prohibition on tandem development. In addition, the citywide FAR limit is proposed to be further reduced

because redevelopment activity has altered the character of this neighborhood more than many other City neighborhoods. New de-

velopment should match the scale and character of existing development. The following amendments to the overlay are recom-

mended.

S U M M A RY O F R E C O M M E N D E D A M E N D M E N T S :

C O L O N I A LT O W N O V E R L AY


City Planning Division staff analyzed City building permit and County property appraiser records for duplexes and tandems in Tradi-

tional 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, dur-

ing 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.

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 neighbor-

hoods.

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 owner-

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

A N A LY S I S O F 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


ship 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

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 hous-

ing boom from 2006-2009, smaller units under 1500 sq. ft. all but disappeared, whereas the largest units over 2000 sq. ft. in-

creased 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

The proposed amendments 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.

In Colonialtown, 81 of 83 units built from 2001-2010 would be impacted by a maximum FAR of 0.35. The average reduction is

approximately 132 sq. ft. due to the 0.45 FAR limit, plus an additional 302 sq. ft. due to the 0.35 FAR limit.

This data shows that limitations under consideration can make a measurable difference in making duplex and tandem units more

compatible with their surroundings without affecting their appeal to the intended market of first-time homebuyers.


A draft code amendment is attached, subject to final review and approval by the City Attorney’s Office.

FINDINGS In review of the proposed LDC amendment it is found that:

1. The proposed Land Development Code amendment is consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, Florida Stat-

utes).

2. The proposed Land Development Code amendment is consistent with the East Central Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan.

3. The proposed Land Development Code amendment is consistent with the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.

4. The proposed Land Development Code amendment is consistent with the objectives and policies of the City’s adopted Growth

Management Plan (GMP).

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Orlando Land Development Code.

LDC2014-00363 DRAFT ORDINANCE February 24, 2015 1

DUPLEX DEVELOPMENT – DRAFT ORDINANCE 1

2

WHEREAS, due to the high cost of infill housing, duplex dwelling development has 3

become more prevalent in Orlando’s existing established R-2A and R-2B zoning districts; and 4

5

WHEREAS, the predominant use in the City’s R-2A and R-2B zoning districts is the single-6

family detached residential dwelling unit; and 7

8

WHEREAS, unlike single-family housing, duplex dwelling units have inherent design 9

challenges that are currently not addressed in the City of Orlando’s Land Development Code; and 10

11

WHEREAS, if design challenges are not addressed properly, poorly designed duplex 12

dwellings may impact the character of existing R-2A and R-2B zoning districts to the detriment 13

and overall well being of established residential neighborhoods; and 14

15

WHEREAS the City Council desires to adopt design criteria for new duplex dwelling 16

development that will maintain the prevailing bulk, height, setbacks, appearance and general 17

character of established residential neighborhoods; and 18

19

WHEREAS, the City no longer desires to include provisions in the Land Development Code 20

for cluster lot developments and average lot developments; 21

22

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORLANDO, 23

FLORIDA: 24

25

SECTION I: All references for Average Lot Development (1 Family and Duplex Dwelling) 26

and Cluster Development (1 Family and Duplex Dwelling) shall hereby be deleted from Figure 27

2A of Section 58.110 – entitled “Traditional City Residential Uses” 28

29

SECTION 2: All references for Average Lot Development (1 Family and Duplex 30

Dwelling) and Cluster Development (1 Family and Duplex Dwelling) shall hereby be deleted 31

from 2A of Section 58.110, entitled “Traditional City Residential Uses”, and Figure 2C of Section 32

58.110, entitled “Residential Uses Outside the Traditional City” 33

34

SECTION 3: In Figure 2A of Section 58.110, entitled “Traditional City Residential 35

Uses”, in the R-2A district, Conventional Duplex and Tandem Development shall be shown as 36

“PA” (Permitted Use, Appearance Review Required). In the R-2B district, Multifamily 37

Development shall be shown as “PA5” (Permitted Use, Appearance Review Required, maximum 38

of 5 units per building site). 39

40

SECTION 4: Figure 1 (Traditional City) of Section 58.110, shall be revised to insert the 41

following two rows between the existing standards for Gross Res. Density and Non-residential 42

FAR, to read as follows: 43

44


R-1’s R-2A R-2B (others)

Max. Single Family and Duplex FAR (36)

(36) 0.45 0.50 --

Max. Single Family and Duplex GFA

-- 4000 sq. ft. 4000 sq. ft. + 2000 sq. ft. per unit over 2

--

1

2

In addition, Footnote 36 shall be inserted as a footnote applying to Figure 1 (Traditional City) of 3

Section 58.110 as follows: 4

5

36. Non-conforming residential lots are subject to the provisions of Section 58.1152 6

(a)-(e) concerning FAR, height, location of required parking, appearance review 7

and modification of standards. 8

9

SECTION 5: Footnote 12 of Figure 1 in Chapter 58 of the Land Development Code of the 10

City of Orlando is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety as a footnote applying to Figures 1 11

& 2, as follows: 12

13

12. Wherever Duplexes and Tandems are allowed as Permitted or Conditional Uses, 14

they are subject to a series of requirements including a Maximum Floor Area, 15

Design Standards and Appearance Review. See Part 3D of this Chapter. Side-by-16

Side Duplexes are not permitted in the R-2A district. Court Home Development is 17

not permitted in the R-2A district except where the Zoning Official determines 18

there is no other alternative based on existing environmental or built conditions. 19

The side yard setback for the back unit of any Front-to-Back Duplex or Tandem in 20

the R-2A district shall be 7.5 feet. 21

(a) Floor Area Ratio. The maximum Floor Area Ration (FAR) for Tandem 22

Single Family Developments and Duplexes Shall be 0.50. 23

(b) Tandems Permitted on Corner and Through Lots. Tandem Single Family 24

Developments shall be permitted on corner and through lots that are otherwise 25

zoned for and meet the site standards for duplexes. See Part 3 of this Chapter for 26

specific design standards. Planned Development approval shall be required when 27

two detached principal units are proposed for interior lots. 28

29

SECTION 6: Footnote 22 of Figure 1 in Chapter 58 of the Land Development Code of the 30

City of Orlando is hereby amended as follows: 31

32

22. (a) Where Permitted. In R-1AA, R-1A, R-1, R-1N and R-2A zoning districts an 33

Accessory Apartment, Accessory Cottage, or Garage Apartment may be 34

allowed as a second dwelling unit on a single-family building site under the 35

following conditions: 36


1

i) Accessory Apartment. 2

(1) Inside the Traditional City, one Accessory Apartment shall be 3

allowed as a Permitted Use when the building site is at least 1.5 4

times the minimum lot size for the applicable zoning district. 5

(2) Outside the Traditional City, one Accessory Apartment may be 6

allowed as a Conditional Use in accordance with the regulations 7

and procedures provided in Chapter 65, Part 2D, when the 8

building site is at last 1.5 times the minimum lot size for the 9

applicable zoning district. 10

11

ii) Accessory Cottage and Garage Apartment. 12

(3 1) In the R-2A district inside and outside of the Traditional City, one 13

Accessory Cottages or garage apartment shall be a permitted use 14

provided that the minimum building site area for an Accessory 15

Cottage shall be the same as that required for a in connection 16

with a single family dwelling on any building site where duplex 17

development would otherwise be permitted. Accessory Cottages 18

and Garage Apartments are prohibited in an R-2A district on any 19

building site where there is an existing Duplex or Tandem 20

Dwelling, or in connection with any new Duplex or Tandem 21

Dwelling development. 22

(1 2) Inside the Traditional City in the R-1AA, R-1A, R-1 and R-1N 23

Districts, one Accessory Cottage or garage apartment shall be 24

allowed as a Permitted Use when the building site is at least 2.0 25

times the minimum lot size for the applicable zoning district. 26

(2 3) Outside the Traditional City in the R-1AA, R-1A, R-1 and R-1N 27

Districts, one Accessory Cottage or garage apartment may be 28

allowed as a Conditional Use in accordance with the regulations 29

and procedures provided in Chapter 65, Part 2D provided that the 30

building site is at least 2.0 times the minimum lot size for the 31

applicable zoning district. 32

33

(b) Design Standards. The living quarters gross floor area of an accessory cottage 34

dwelling (ACD) or garage apartment shall not exceed 40% of the living 35

quarters gross floor area of the principal structure or 1,200 square feet, 36

whichever is less. However, principal structures with living quarters gross 37

floor area less than 1,700 square feet may have an ACD accessory cottage or 38

garage apartment up to 700 square feet. Appearance Review is required for 39

ACD's, wherein ACD structures to ensure that the accessory cottage or 40

garage apartment shall have the same exterior finish as the principal 41

structure located on the same lot and shall incorporate at least two similar 42

architectural details found on such principal structure into their design. 43

http://library.municode.com/HTML/13349/level2/TITIICICO_CH65OFBOPR.html#TITIICICO_CH65OFBOPR

http://library.municode.com/HTML/13349/level2/TITIICICO_CH65OFBOPR.html#TITIICICO_CH65OFBOPR


Examples of similar architectural details include, but are not limited to, 1

windows, doors, roof style, cornice detailing, vents, and dormers. 2

3

(c) Design Standards in the R-2A and R-2B Districts. On any building site in an R-4

2A or R-2B district where a Duplex or Tandem Dwelling would otherwise be 5

permitted, any new Accessory Cottage or Garage Apartment over 450 sq. ft. 6

and built in connection with a One Family Dwelling must conform to the yard 7

setback and building separation requirements for Tandem Dwellings, except 8

that any Accessory Cottage or Garage Apartment between 451 and 700 sq. ft. 9

may have a minimum 15 ft. rear yard setback. 10

11

SECTION 7: Sections 58.514 through Section 58.529 of Parts 3C, 3D and 3E of 12

Chapter 58 entitled TANDEM SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AVERAGE-LOT DEVELOPMENT 13

and CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT shall hereby be deleted and replaced with the follow part entitled 14

“DUPLEX AND TANDEM DWELLING DEVELOPMENT”: 15

16

3C. DUPLEX AND TANDEM DWELLING DEVELOPMENT 17

18

Sec. 58.514. Applicability and Conflicts 19

20

(a) Intent. The standards and requirements of this Part are intended to provide 21

flexibility for creative site planning, to expand the type of dwelling units 22

available to the public, to maintain compatibility with, and the integrity of, the 23

immediately surrounding neighborhood through architectural design and 24

building orientation appropriate to such neighborhoods, and to create 25

alternative opportunities for fee simple ownership on real property otherwise 26

eligible for duplex development. 27

28

(b) Applicability. Except for Duplex or Tandem Dwellings subject to the specific 29

design standards of a Planned Development zoning district, the standards and 30

requirements of this Part shall apply City-wide to the construction of new 31

Duplex and Tandem Dwellings and Substantial Improvements to existing 32

Duplex and Tandem Dwellings. 33

34

(c) Conflicts. If any provisions of these regulations are determined to be in conflict 35

with any other City regulation, these regulations shall prevail except where 36

otherwise specified or regulated by a Historic District or other overlay zoning 37

district. 38

39

Sec. 58.515. Development and Design Standards. 40

41

The following standards are intended to ensure that Duplex and Tandem Dwelling 42

construction is harmonious and architecturally compatible with existing residential 43

structures in the surrounding neighborhood (within 300 feet). Duplex and Tandem 44

http://library1.municode.com/mcc/DocView/13349/1/357/365/371

http://library1.municode.com/mcc/DocView/13349/1/357/365/371


Dwellings must incorporate styles, materials, finishes, details, and colors that are 1

similar to other structures in the surrounding neighborhood or employ other 2

techniques to provide for an aesthetically compatible transition between structures. 3

4

In addition to the Zoning District and Use Regulations provided in Figures 1-2, the 5

following standards shall apply except where otherwise specified or regulated by a 6

Historic District or other overlay zoning district: 7

8

SUMMARY TABLE OF DUPLEX & TANDEM DWELLING STANDARDS 9

R-2A Other districts 10

Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.45 0.50 11

Max. Gross Floor Area (GFA) per building site 4000 sf 4000 sf 12

Max. GFA for any individual duplex or tandem unit 2200 sf 2500 sf 13

Min. side yard setback for rear unit 7.5 ft. district std. 14

Max. number of stories per building 2 district std. 15

Min. rear yard setback for duplexes (all kinds) 25 ft. district std. 16

Min. rear yard setback for tandems 20 ft. 20 ft. 17

18

(a) Special Requirements in the R-2A District 19

20

1. Except where otherwise specified or regulated by a Historic District or 21

other overlay zoning district, Side-by-Side Duplexes are not permitted in 22

the R-2A district. Court Home Development is not permitted in the R-2A 23

district except where the Zoning Official determines there is no other 24

alternative based on existing environmental or built conditions. 25

26

2. Except where otherwise specified or regulated by a Historic District or 27

other overlay zoning district, Duplex Dwellings (all kinds) are prohibited on 28

corner lots in the R-2A district. Tandem Dwellings are permitted on corner 29

lots in the R-2A district. 30

31

3. Rear unit garages and carports may have a 5 ft. side yard setback ONLY IF 32

there is no second story living area, floor area or deck of any kind above 33

any portion of such garage or carport. 34

35

(b) Tandems – Except where otherwise specified or regulated by a Historic District 36

or other overlay zoning district, Tandem Single Family Development shall be 37

permitted on building sites that are otherwise zoned for and meet the building 38

site standards for Duplex Dwellings. When such building sites are located on a 39

corner, Tandem Single Family Development is encouraged in lieu of Duplex 40

Dwellings. On each Tandem building site there shall be a minimum building 41

separation of 10 ft. between buildings/structures, with no less than 5 ft. on 42

each side of the tandem property line. 43


1

(c) Court Homes – Wherever new development will compose both building sites of 2

any Court Home Development in any district, the development site may have 3

only one driveway, except for a corner development site where an additional 4

driveway may be allowed if consistent with Chapter 61. 5

6

(d) Dwelling Units Platted as Separate Lots – Each dwelling unit within a Duplex or 7

Tandem Dwelling building site may be situated on its own separate lot, 8

provided: 9

10

1. The Duplex or Tandem Dwelling building site is platted into two individual 11

lots, or 12

2. The Zoning Official approves a Duplex or Tandem Dwelling Lot Spit in 13

compliance with Section 58.524. 14

15

(e) Appearance Review – To ensure that each Duplex and Tandem Dwelling is 16

harmonious and architecturally compatible with existing residential structures 17

in the surrounding neighborhood, an Appearance Review in accordance with 18

Section 62, Part 3 of this Code shall be required prior to the issuance of a 19

Building Permit and the following additional standards: 20

21

1. Architectural Style – Each Duplex Dwelling must have consistent 22

architectural elements as determined by the Appearance Review Officer. 23

However, the dwelling units within a Tandem Development must have a 24

distinguishable and varied architectural style from one another unless 25

otherwise approved by the Appearance Review Officer. All architectural 26

elements, details, features, and finishes on the exterior of the Duplex or 27

Tandem Dwelling must be both consistent and compatible with the 28

architectural style employed. The Appearance Review Officer will consider 29

the following elements when evaluating conformance with this 30

requirement: 31

32

a. Roof type, pitch, form, material and overhang. 33

b. Exterior elevation and finishes 34

c. Window proportions, groupings, trim, muntins and details. 35

d. Column size, taper, base and moulding. 36

e. Balcony width and depth. 37

f. Porch width, depth and elevation. 38

g. Chimney details. 39

h. Dormers/parapets. 40

i. Brackets, shutters, railings, rafter tails and decorative details. 41

j. Transparency 42

k. Other elements, as determined appropriate by the Appearance Review 43

Officer. 44


1

2. Compatibility – The Appearance Review Officer will consider the following 2

factors when evaluating the compatibility of Duplex or Tandem Dwelling 3

development with the surrounding neighborhood: 4

5

a. Logic of overall design 6

b. site plan 7

c. Materials selection 8

d. Circulation and parking 9

e. Architectural style 10

f. Compliance with the Traditional City standards and requirements for 11

residential development (Section 62.200). 12

13

3. Orientation – The front unit of each Front-to-Back Duplex or Tandem 14

Dwelling building site must have a principal pedestrian entrance oriented 15

towards the front lot line. On through lots, both dwelling units must have a 16

principal pedestrian entrance oriented toward their respective front lot 17

lines. 18

19

4. Design Variances – Duplex and Tandem Dwellings that do not comply with 20

the above Appearance Review requirements may be applied for through a 21

Design Variance per Sections 65.386-387 of the LDC. 22

23

(f) Transparency. In addition to the Traditional City requirements of Section 24

62.200, the first and second floor side walls of any Duplex or Tandem dwelling 25

unit shall contain a minimum of 10% transparent or translucent materials. 26

27

(g) Accessory Structures – Within any Duplex or Tandem building site having an 28

FAR over 0.35 or GFA over 3000 sq. ft. (whichever is less), accessory detached 29

garages and carports shall be prohibited and accessory structures greater than 30

150 sq. ft in floor area on each lot shall be prohibited. Walls, fences, and 31

swimming pools may be located on each lot provided they conform to the 32

appropriate regulations contained within this Chapter. 33

34

(h) Corner Building Sites – In addition to all other requirements of this section, 35

Duplex and Tandem Dwellings on corner building sites shall be developed such 36

that the front dwelling unit has a principal pedestrian entrance oriented 37

towards the front lot line and the rear dwelling unit has a principal pedestrian 38

entrance oriented to the street side lot line. 39

40

Sec. 58.516 Duplex and Tandem Dwelling Lot Splits 41

42

(a) Intent - The Duplex and Tandem Dwelling Lot Split standards of this Section are 43

intended to allow each dwelling unit within an existing Duplex Dwelling 44


building site (including those that may currently be in condominium ownership 1

and existing nonconforming Side-by-side Duplexes and Court Homes) to be 2

converted to fee-simple ownership, similar to Attached Dwelling 3

Developments (see Part 3B of this Chapter), where such use is otherwise 4

permitted by this Code. The standards of this Part are also intended to ensure 5

proper design and unified maintenance of common areas within Duplex 6

Dwelling Developments. 7

8

(b) Process – Duplex and Tandem Dwelling Lot Splits may be approved in 9

conjunction with a Subdivision Plat or Lot Split approval wherever such 10

dwellings are permitted by this Code. An Applicant wishing to undertake a 11

Duplex or Tandem Dwelling Lot Split shall specifically request such approval in 12

conjunction with an application for Plat or Lot Split approval. All applications 13

shall include a detailed site plan, with building elevations, for appearance and 14

neighborhood compatibility review. 15

16

(c) Effect of Approval. Where a Subdivision Plat has been approved for a Duplex 17

or Tandem Dwelling Lot Split Development in accordance with this Part, the 18

Final Plat shall substantially conform to the Duplex or Tandem Dwelling Lot 19

Split approval. No building permit shall be issued within any Duplex or Tandem 20

Dwelling Lot Split Development except in accordance with the approved 21

Subdivision Plat or Lot Split and upon evidence that any covenants, restrictions 22

and easements for the Duplex or Tandem Dwelling Lot Split Development have 23

been duly recorded. The Office of Legal Affairs shall review such agreements 24

for form and legality. Such agreements shall be recorded as a covenant running 25

with the property in perpetuity, or until such time as the entire Duplex 26

Dwelling is demolished. 27

28

(d) Ownership and Maintenance of Common Areas and Structures. Common Areas 29

and Structures shall meet the requirements of Chapter 65, Part 5D 30

(Improvements Retained in Private Ownership) and Part 5E (Maintenance of 31

Common Improvements and Open Space). Agreements required by this 32

Section shall be subject to review and approval by the Office of Legal Affairs 33

and shall be recorded as a covenant running with the property in perpetuity, or 34

until such time as the dwellings are demolished. 35

36

(e) Development and Design Standards - Each Duplex or Tandem Dwelling Lot Split 37

development site shall conform to the development and design standards of 38

Sections 58.514-58.515 above. 39

40

(f) Building Site Standards - In order to establish two separate lots, the Duplex or 41

Tandem Dwelling building site must conform to the following minimum 42

standards: 43

44


1. The Duplex or Tandem Dwelling building site must conform with Sec. 1

58.110, Figure 1 for two family conventional development in the zoning 2

district in which it is located, or 3

2. Must be a legal non-conforming Duplex Dwelling or lot of record. 4

5

(g) Lot Standards - Both lots within a Duplex Dwelling building site must comply 6

with the following minimum standards: 7

8

1. Side-by-Side Lots (including existing nonconforming Side-by-side 9

Duplexes): 10

a. Minimum lot area – 2,250 sq. ft. 11

b. Minimum mean lot width - 22.5 ft. 12

c. Minimum street frontage - 22.5 ft. 13

14

2. Front-to Back Lots (including existing nonconforming Court Homes): 15

a. Minimum lot area - 2,250 sq. ft. 16

b. Minimum mean lot width - As required in the applicable zoning district 17

c. Minimum street frontage for front lot - As required in the applicable 18

zoning district. 19

d. The rear lot is not required to have street frontage, but is required to 20

have a vehicular cross-access easement to the right of way. 21

22

No existing Accessory Dwelling Unit in an R-2A or R-2B district may be 23

converted to a Tandem Dwelling unless it conforms to the yard setback and 24

building separation requirements for Tandem Dwellings. 25

26

(h) Duplex Dwelling Development Standards – Duplex Dwelling Lot Split 27

Developments shall conform to all of the following additional standards: 28

29

1. The original undivided lot shall be considered one unified parcel or building 30

site for zoning purposes. 31

2. The exteriors of both duplex units shall be included in the required 32

maintenance agreement described in Section (d). 33

3. Utility lines are separate and independent, or for any shared utility, there is 34

a joint maintenance agreement. 35

4. The owners of both duplex units shall be required to jointly apply to the 36

City for any building permit that affects the exterior appearance of either 37

unit. 38

39

Secs. 58.517 – 58.529. Reserved. 40

41

SECTION 8: Section 65.411 of the City Code shall hereby be amended to read as follows: 42

43

Sec. 65.411. Subdivisions Eligible for Waivers of the Platting Process. 44


The Planning Director may grant waivers from the platting process for the following 1

types of subdivisions or re-subdivisions of land: 2

3

(A) Lot Split. A subdivision that will result in the creation of no more than two (2) additional 4

residential, commercial or industrial lots, so that the lot to be split becomes no more 5

than three lots, may be considered a Lot Split provided the following conditions are 6

met: 7

… 8

(8) For Duplex and Tandem Dwelling Lot Splits, joint maintenance easements and 9

agreements already exist on the lot to be split or are provided by separate 10

instrument. Such easements and agreements shall be implemented and 11

enforced by a mandatory homeowners association. 12

13

SECTION 9: Section 65.581 of the City Code shall hereby be amended to read as follows: 14

15

5E. MAINTENANCE OF COMMON IMPROVEMENTS AND OPEN SPACE 16

17

Sec. 65.581. Establishing a Means of Common Ownership and Management. 18

Prior to approval of the Final Site Plan or Final Subdivision Plat or Lot Split, the 19

developer/builder shall provide documents to establish a means of common ownership 20

and management of all common open space and common improvements. Such 21

documents shall establish an organization or entity to own and manage the open space 22

and/or improvements, describe its membership and responsibilities, and shall include a 23

maintenance and fiscal program for the improvements. In no event shall a Certificate of 24

Completion be issued for a development involving common open space and/or 25

improvements until the entity of common ownership and management has been 26

incorporated. 27

28

SECTION 10: Section 65.582 of the City Code shall hereby be amended to read as 29

follows: 30

31

Sec. 65.582. Funding Mechanism Required. 32

(A) Recorded Document. Prior to approval of any Final Site Plan or Final Subdivision Plat 33

or Lot Split, the developer/builder shall provide and record documents to establish a 34

funding mechanism for the maintenance of the common improvements and/or open 35

space. The documents shall provide a method for the organization or entity established 36

in this Section to assess the property owners having beneficial use of the improvements 37

and open space for the cost of their maintenance. The method of assessment shall 38

provide the legal right for the organization or entity to impose liens against those 39

properties for which payment of any assessment is not made. Collection of assessments 40

and enforcing the payment thereof shall be the responsibility of the organization or 41

entity and shall not be the responsibility of the City of Orlando. The assessments 42


imposed by the organization or entity shall not relieve property owners from any taxes, 1

fees, charges or assessments imposed by the City or any other governmental agency. 2

3

(B) Notice to Buyers. The documents shall also provide for notice to purchasers and 4

prospective purchasers of properties that the organization or entity shall have the 5

authority to make assessments and impose liens as provided in this Section. 6

7

SECTION 11: Section 66.200 of the City Code is hereby 8

amended to read as follows: 9

10

Sec. 66.200 – Definitions 11

… 12

Cluster Development: A development approach which permits 13

reduction in the minimum lot size requirements and other 14

zoning district regulations for certain residential uses while 15

keeping overall project density the same as in conventional 16

development. 17

… 18

Court Home Development – Any Duplex or Tandem 19

Development in which two abutting Duplex and/or Tandem 20

building sites are designed so that a single driveway serves 21

three or more of the dwelling units on the two abutting sites, 22

or where two driveways on the abutting building sites are 23

located adjacent to each other along or near their common 24

property line. This term also includes any situation where a 25

New Duplex or Tandem Development is to be built abutting an 26

Existing Duplex or Tandem Development in such a way that 27

the Existing and New Developments taken together will 28

compose a Court Home Development. 29

… 30

Dwelling, Front-to-Back Duplex: Any Duplex Dwelling 31

Development that has the majority of one dwelling unit 32

located behind the other dwelling unit with respect to the 33

front lot line (See Illustration). 34

… 35

36

Dwelling, One Family (or Single Family): A dwelling designed 37

for and occupied exclusively by one family. This term includes 38

Conventional, Average-lot, Clustered and Zero-lot-line One 39

Family dwellings. 40

41

Dwelling, Side-by-Side Duplex: Any Duplex Dwelling 42

Development where both dwelling units are side-by-side and 43

Front-to-Back Duplex

Court Home Development


at approximately the same distance with respect to the front lot line (See Illustration). 1

… 2

Dwelling, Two Family (or Duplex): A single structure on a single lot or building site 3

containing two dwelling units, each of which is totally separated from the other by a 4

wall or ceiling, unpierced for any purpose including access, communication, or utility 5

connection. The minimum height of the wall between the two units shall be at least 8 6

feet, and the space on either side of this wall shall contain heated living space and/or a 7

garage. 8

9

10

SECTION 12: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this 11

ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, 12

such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding 13

shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereto. 14

15

16

SECTION 13: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 17

Side-by-Side Duplex

staff report to the municipal planning board tem march 17 ......much more spare than in a typical...

Documents