The City is proposing to amend the land development code to change the regulations for building duplexes and tandem single family homes.
The majority of such development is in the R-2A and R-2B zoning districts. In order to maintain the character of existing neighborhoods, the code needs to be changed to provide standards that maintain the positive elements of the neighborhood such as tree cover, cohesive architectural styles, and minimal curb cuts.
Further, the proposed changes will help to mitigate the potential negative impacts of large building mass and multiple parked cars. The proposed changes will not reduce the number of lots where duplex or tandem development is allowed.
The Municipal Planning Board held a public hearing on LDC2014-00363 on December 20, 2016 and voted to recommend approval of the proposed code amendments.
David Rose filed a legislative appeal to the LDC Amendment for Duplex and Tandem Development Amendment (LDC2014-00363) after it got approved by Municipal Planning Board at the December 20th meeting. The appeal goes before City Council on January 23rd.
If the City Council recommends approval of the proposed code amendments at the January 23rd Council meeting, an ordinance will be prepared for consideration at a future City Council meeting.
Summary of concerns by the appellant David Rose:
- "The new ordinance is not consistent with City policies requiring the Land Development Code to be guided by 'smart growth.'" Staff Response: Objective 1.5 in the Future Land Use Element of the City’s Growth Management Plan (GMP) states that “The City shall provide policy and program mechanisms which further the principles of sustainability and Smart Growth, including:...encouraging walkable neighborhoods with a mix of uses; fostering a strong sense of place; directing development toward existing communities and infill opportunities...” Policy 1.1.2 states, “The existing land use pattern of employment, housing and commerce in the Traditional City shall be preserved and enhanced. The City’s Land Development Regulations shall encourage rehabilitation, revitalization and private investment in the Traditional City by preserving and improving the quality of the urban environment.” The proposed changes are consistent with the Growth Management Plan and will help to ensure that the existing land use pattern is preserved and enhanced, while supporting appropriate infill development.
- "The new ordinance will interact with existing ordinances on a typical traditional City lot. In other words can an actual marketable duplex be built on a typical lot given the complexity of ALL building requirements." Staff Response: GMP Urban Design Element Objective 5.2 calls for the City to “adopt urban design standards to promote positive design elements of the Traditional City in R-2A/T and R- 2B/T zoning districts.” Associated Policy 5.2.1 identifies issues such as building mass, garage frontage, and discouraging monotony, that should be addressed by the design standards. The proposed changes meet the intent of the GMP while providing flexibility for design of duplexes. It is true that in some cases the design or layout may be different from what developers are used to, and they may need to make adjustments. As the new code is implemented, staff will work with applicants to address any design challenges they encounter prior to permitting. In addition, applicants may pursue a design variance if a unique challenge cannot be addressed by the standard code requirements.
- "The new ordinance will negatively impact the quality of housing in the traditional City and reduce the amount of moderate priced housing available." Staff Response: The proposed changes are specifically intended to improve the character and quality of duplex and tandem housing. Approximately 22 duplex units were built in the City in 2015. While that number may increase over time, it is a small fraction of citywide development, which was 2,182 units in 2015. Housing affordability is unlikely to change substantially based on a small portion of the market. The proposed changes are needed because they have a disproportionate impact on existing neighborhoods, not because they are expected to become a primary component of the City’s housing market.
As you may recall, the issue of duplexes in Orlando was a major story in 2016:
- 60 Historic Milk District Homes Demolished for 120 Rental Duplex Units
- Duplex Boom - How the Duplex Shat Up Downtown Orlando
- Shitty Duplexes Get Public Hearing
- City's Duplex Design to be Altered
- Milk District Duplexes Defended by Wonus
- College Park Duplex Developer May Side-Step Zoning to Double Their Money
- The Milk District to be the New Thornton Park aka #wonustown
And yet despite all the public uproar both online and off, staff received approximately 40 emails and letters during 2016 and the responses were evenly mixed between those who support the changes, and those who are opposed. There is also a small group who does not support the changes because they would prefer to ban or further restrict duplex locations.
At the December 20th Municipal Planning Board meeting, eight of of the eleven citizens who showed up to speak were in opposition of the amendment:
- William Murphy, 840 Kenilworth Terrace, Orlando, FL 32803, spoke on his behalf, in opposition of the request. His main concerns were: He believes tandems on corner lots are a bad idea and impact fees for tandems are more for permitting. 90% of duplex lots in Orlando are 50 ft. lots. Important to let garages remain. Most popular duplex is side by side so both residents can have backyards. Important to send public notices out to all homeowners affected by this land development code change. Mr. Murphy requested the Board vote no or table the request until all homeowners had been notified.
- David Rose, 2111 Gerda Terrace, Orlando, FL 32804, spoke on his behalf in opposition of the request. He believes the code amendment adds extremely restrictive conditions and strips the homeowners of their current rights. He requested the City send good faith notifications to all property owners affected.
- Steve Allen Sharp, 351 E. Citrus St., Altamonte Springs, FL 32701, spoke on behalf of Classical Traditions business located at 321 Montgomery Rd. #161312, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, in opposition of the request. He stated that the proposal had pros and cons and would like to be invited to the next workshop.
- Ed Avellaneda, 3535 Dubsdread Cir. Orlando, FL 32804, spoke on his behalf in opposition of the request. Mr. Avellaneda noted that the proposed City rules were not feasible and might be creating a bigger problem. He was concerned about the economic impact it might have. He also stated that proposing an FAR for single-family homes would give R1 parcel owners the same limitations as R2 parcel owners.
- Angela Guthrie, 1305 Belgrade Ave., Orlando, FL 32803, spoke in favor of the request. She noted that canopy trees have been torn down due to the duplex and tandem developments. She stated that 95% of the residents in Colonialtown were appalled by these developments which were destroying the characteristics of their neighborhoods.
- Noah Adelman, 2025 Illinois St., Orlando, FL 32803 – Had to leave and did not have the chance to speak, but he requested to be noted in the records as a proponent of the request.
- Tim Ackert, 915 Palm Dr., Orlando, FL 32803, spoke on his behalf and on behalf of his father-in-law in favor of the request. He stated that many of the previous speakers opposed to the request were developers concerned about their profits. Mr. Ackert stated that he can’t drive safely down the streets where there are tandems and duplexes because there is never enough parking and people will block the sidewalks or park on both sides of the street. This affects the neighborhood by not having enough sidewalks. He requested to keep the ambiance of the neighborhood by restricting these developments.
- Frankie Elliott, 1330 Lee Rd., Orlando, FL 32828, spoke on behalf of the Orlando Regional Realtor Association with concerns in terms of the process. She requested that every time the City added a requirement with enough and/or significant changes, that all property owners should be notified.
- Jeff Schnellmann, 1303 Alberta Dr., Winter Park, FL 32789, spoke on behalf of Greater Orlando Builders Association in opposition of the request. His main concerns were: Was opposed to limiting people’s property rights. Currently single-family homes don’t have an FAR limitation. Opposed to the City telling a property owner what their house should look like. Mr. Schnellmann stated that this is what HOA’s (Home Owner’s Association) do and people like to live in the City because they don’t have HOA’s.It is very challenging to build a home in the Traditional City and with the proposed changes it would be even more challenging and expensive.
- David Rasmussen, 1460 Holts Grove Circle, Winter Park, FL 32789, spoke on his behalf in opposition of some parts of the request and in favor of other parts of the request. He noted the following: In favor of restricting the big box duplex developments that don’t fit into the character of the neighborhood. Not in favor of the FAR reduction in Colonialtown; stated it was discriminatory. Concerned that 95% of the property owners don’t have an idea of what’s going on with their properties. Mr. Rasmussen suggested to have infill lots that were small 1 or 2 bedrooms that were affordable; to restrict tandems and duplexes to corner lots; and requested to meet with staff and invite the neighborhood to a workshop.
- Sandra Greer, 1504 Canton St., Orlando, FL 32803, spoke on her behalf and on behalf of the Colonialtown residents. She stated that a packet was submitted to the Board last year with a signed petition, pictures and written responses. Ms. Greer stated she was opposed to front to back duplexes because she would have a neighbor’s front door at the front of her house and a neighbor’s front door at her backyard as well. She noted that she didn’t feel the garage and parking changes would make a difference. Ms. Greer is in favor of the FAR reduction but does not believe tandems should be permitted in corner lots.
