The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/10/2018 Item 2, Wyatt Sheffield, Alexis From:Anne Wyatt <annehomeshareslo@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, To:Jerry Rioux; Davidson, Doug; JohnF@pshhc.org; Hemalata C. Dandekar; Fowler, Xzandrea; Chuck Stevenson; Codron, Michael; carolynstinyhousecreations@gmail.com; Advisory Bodies Subject:Re: PC Comments - Tiny Homes ass ADUs Dear Planning Commissioners: Thank you, in advance, for your consideration of ADUs and tiny homes on wheels (THOWs) on Wednesday 10/10/18. I fully support allowance of both THOWs and ADU's in general as a way to practically meet community affordable housing needs and add to diversity of housing stock in the City, particularly for the growing number of single-person households, and would encourage you to approve allowances, with a few changes so as to make the new code work better to allow such housing in the City in practice:  Maximum and minimum size: extend maximum size up from 300 to 400 sq. ft. consistent with "park model" and RV allowances (per Rioux suggestion); Minimum size: I support the recommended 100 square foot minimum, consistent with IBC requirement of 70 square foot room plus toilet facility space. It looks like zoning code section 17.86.020 requires 150 square foot minimum size, however. Does this conflict with the 100 sq. ft. minimum proposed, or set the 150 minimum for some other type of unit than a THOW (unclear)?  Yearly approval: The intent of the yearly approval is clear. However, if a property owner invests the tens of thousands of dollars to purchase, place, permit and hook up the tiny home, this potential of having to remove it year-to-year creates a high level of risk, likely to be a disincentive to installation. Recommendation: include standard condition of approval: where if 1 or more complaints about noise, fumes, hazards, parking or other? violations are collected in any one year period, permit will be reviewed and may be revoked. Otherwise, permit automatically rolls over and renews. Why disincentivize housing production and create make work for residents and City staff, if there are no problems?  Utility connections: I support the allowance, as written, of not forcing utility connections if units can be off grid. It may be useful to give some guidance up front in the code on what connections to water, sewer and electric may look like: process, cost, other permits required? will flex hoses be allowed above ground with connection to drain clean outs? will there be a standard amperage required for electrical? The more clear the code can be, the smoother the process, and the more residents can think about ways they can safely and aesthetically implement the allowances.  Director action and design review: Potentially problematic design review process. Section 17.86.020 Guest homes and Accessory Quarters code is referenced in staff report and approval guidelines: E 1) and 2 there require "Architectural compatibility: Accessory Dwelling Units shall be architecturally and functionally compatible with the primary residence. The Accessory Dwelling Unit shall comply with the following design standards: (1) Architectural Style and Form. Architectural style and form shall match or be compatible with the style and form of the primary residence on the property. (2) Materials. The materials of the Accessory Dwelling Unit shall match or be compatible with the materials of the primary residence on the property." While understanding intent, in a general way, what if an applicant wants to put a standard well designed tiny home behind a colonial home, for example? Does the tiny home have to be redwood horizontal white clapboard to "match or be compatible?" I'd suggest that requiring a "matching" tiny home would be kitsch and not your intent here. It also could be cost prohibitive as commercial mass production, one main way of cost savings, may be excluded from the "matching or compatible" tiny homes allowed in many yards, then. I'm a planner used to code language, in general, and I have no idea what "architecturally and functionally compatible" means! Who else does? Let's avoid rabbit holes, since we have the opportunity before us now. Proposed code language already requires the THOW to be screened and behind the house, minimizing public view. Given this, 1 my recommendation would be to Eliminate the unclear possibly counterproductive "match or be compatible" and "architecturally and functionally compatible" language, at least on THOWs. If you must include language regarding look of THOW, describe the look sought, e.g. "pitched roof, such and such a percentage wood or wood-like hardi-plank siding or other how this is NOT just any old travel trailer," etc. which I think is the intent here. Without a public review requirement, placing these vague determinations on the planning director's shoulders seems a significant deterrent to application and installation. (I'm imagining Mr. Codron spending half his valuable time sorting through tiny house submissions to consider whether they "match or are compatible" with various types of primary residences and are" architecturally and functionally compatible," should THOW applications roll in.)  Backyard only allowance: It is unclear what percentage of otherwise suitable city lots with interested homeowners would be excluded from THOW installation with the "backyard only" mandate, without special exception. Recommendation: change back yard/behind home to "back yard or side yard." Again, screening is required, so side yards could be appropriate placing, in many instances and the only option in many instances without backyard access or requiring tree removals, for example.  Along lines of increasing maximum size of ADUs to 400 square feet, change ADU lot coverage exemption to 400 sq. feet, consistent with "park model" and RV definition allowances, per Rioux description Many of us who support housing options and the production of affordable housing are pleased to see these changes, long due, so thank you again. The Homeless Services Oversight Council has long supported and recommended such code changes that would allow and incentivize ADUs and smaller home options countywide. We look forward to the provision of increased small home options for people who seek simpler living in smaller spaces, less home purchase debt, lower monthly rent and utility costs, the ability to live near work and services in the City, and the flexibility to potentially move homes altogether when jobs and circumstances change. These changes you make Wednesday have the potential to add significantly to the affordable housing stock in the City and improve life for many residents. Sincerely, anne wyatt Executive Director HomeShareSLO www.HomeShareSLO.org (805) 215-5474 office Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Creating Housing Solutions by Connecting People and homes On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 1:03 PM Jerry Rioux < wrote: Dear Planning Commissioners, I support a wide range of options for meeting local housing needs. Two options that I am especially partial to are accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and tiny homes. Combined, they can increase our affordable housing supply with little public investment or environmental impact. 2 Consequently, I wholeheartedly encourage you to allow tiny homes on wheels with up to 400 square feet of living area to be used as ADUs with basically the same requirements as other ADUs. They could be subject to the Director’s review and approval but should not be subject to a 12 month time limit. I also suggest that motor homes, fifth wheels or the typical travel trailers not be allowed as an ADU. Some standards are appropriate for tiny homes on wheels, such as utility hookups, exterior materials and skirting. Because tiny homes on wheels are technically RVs or recreational vehicles, I think that it is important that you specifically allow RVs that look like homes to be used as ADUs. Many commercially manufactured RVs are now made using residential siding and roofing materials. In particular, park models or park trailers, as defined in Section 18009.3 of the Health and Safety Code, would function well be as ADUs. Park models are up to 14 feet wide and have up to 400 square feet of living area. Many also have sleeping lofts. Attached are interior and exterior photos plus the floor plan of a 400 sf park model that should be welcomed as an ADU in all areas of the City. I question why you recommend limiting the size of tiny homes to 300 SF. The maximum size for RVs under both state and federal law is 400 SF. 400 SF should be the limit for the city as well. Thank you. Jerry Rioux, Executive Director San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund 71 Zaca Lane, Suite 130, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 phone: (805) 543-5970 e-mail: jerry@slochtf.org website: www.slochtf.org 3