Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. All right. Good evening. I am calling to order our planning commission regular meeting for Tuesday, July 15, 2025. I will start with the flag. All right. Item two, roll call. Commissioner, I am here. I am here.

Commissioner Party here. Commissioner Herrera here. Chair Finley here. Commissioner McDow here. Commissioner Tucson, Commissioner Sion is not here. And next we have public comment. This is a time we set aside for folks in the audience who would like to speak to us about an item that is not on tonight's agenda. So if you'd like to come to speak to us about something not on the agenda, um you're welcome to have three minutes. please come up to the podium and introduce yourself. Otherwise, if nobody does, we'll we do have someone. Okay.

Uh, hi commissioners. My name is Evan Drake. Um, I'm a local builder and part of the Syscue Housing Alliance. Um, I apologize I won't be able to stay tonight. Um, I have to take off. But I just wanted to briefly say um that I believe that ownership of tiny houses um should remain an option for all individuals um including personal not entirely just commercial endeavors. Um I know that is on the weekend agenda and I apologize but I won't be here. So thank you. Thanks for your input. Anyone else?

All right, we'll close that item and move Okay. But I think that no one else is interested in this item. So, we're going to move on to item four, which is our consent agenda. And the item on that consent agenda is the approval of our minutes from our June 17th meeting. And if no one has changes to it, we can leave it as a consent agenda item. And I um hear a motion.

I move to I move to accept the consent agenda item four of the approval of the minutes for the June 17th regular meeting. All right. Do I have a second? Allan seconded. All in favor?

I opposed. Motion passes unanimously. Item number five, this is a public hearing and a continuation and our continuation is divided into two separate items, but this is a continuation from our June 17th regular meeting and it's regarding the Mount Sa Municipal Code amendment regarding tiny homes on weeks. Either way, Jeff, please. Thank you, Chair. Um, so at the request of uh commission uh at the last meeting on June 17th, uh staff did a little more research into uh issues uh related to uh to movement. And roughly um I I think the the gist of the concern was that there was concern about introducing a mobile home or mobile occupancy type of unit into a single uh family or multiple family context um particularly with respect to moveins move out. So was ownership or could ownership be in any way construed to um to induce less mobility, less movement? The thought was potentially yes. Um so the prohibition of individual tiny homes on wheels ownership in R2 and R3 uh was um was your direction to explore that. Um I've done that. Um I've broken the recommendation uh or at least the background discussion recommendation into a few parts. Um first and foremost um home ownership equity is um a large part of the reason that you would uh as a decision-m body or recommendation body

in this in this regard um recommend that uh individual tiny homes on wheels unit ownership um be allowed in all zones. uh that does give um or provide increased opportunity for what is referred to as step up equity in home ownership. Um prohibiting ownership um would not only preclude that type of step equity for home ownership, but it would also provide opportunities for developers uh to come in and purchase large larger lots in R2 and R3 uh and lease andor rent uh those units out. um thereby providing all of the benefits of stat ownership um to a single individual i.e. developer uh not individual uh potential homeowners. Um secondly, the issue of mobility did a little research um by reaching out to uh jurisdictions who have had um tiny homes on wheels ordinances in effect for uh over a year. Um those are those sources are cited in in the staff report. Uh and also spoke to representatives of the tiny uh home industry association. So they're the organizing body, the legislating body, if you will, uh nationwide for for tiny homes on wheels. Um, I found that on average, uh, tiny homes are moved, um, roughly two to three times in their lifetime. And as a permanent, um, form of of home ownership or occupancy, um, the the lifespan of tiny homes, though not as as long as a foundation uh, uh, uh, type of occupancy or or type of residence, um, is a number of decades, not a number of years. So, two to three uh times in in that in that time frame is by by staff's judgment and

consequential. Um reasons are cited in staff report due to logistical concerns, hard utility connections, um oversized trailer weight, permitting required for uh for hauling uh commercial haulers are required. They can't be hauled on and off site by by by someone with a big truck, for example. Um I I dug a little more into the mobility issue um particularly with um the previously approved ordinances um that I researched. Um and no uh no jurisdiction uh exercised or conveyed any concerns whatsoever about the frequency of movement. It was not identified as a as an issue. Um rather um tangentially I will say that the biggest concern that um jurisdictions had was that the ordinance went too far in restricting design standards and uh regulations related to tiny homes on wheels particularly villages and they were far less popular than those jurisdictions had intended or had hoped for as a consequence of overregulating the industry. So that's a an anecdote, but it's it's um a consequence of of reaching out to to three jurisdictions statewide and the tiny home industry association. Um I felt like if if the intent is to restrict mobility um directly, then a far more direct way to do that would be to add uh a section to the ordinance to restrict movement. Um simply stating in the staff report, it's underlined um in item two that movement on and off site shall be limited to no more than annually or as required for registration, certification or related compliance of the direct discretion of

the planning director. Um so that I I suggest that here um it is added to the second item on the agenda which is the full ordinance. So it's added as a provision there should you choose should you support that. Um if not we strike it. Um if you add something else we can also add that um as well and move forward with the recommendation. Um thirdly cooperative ownership prohibition of individual tiny homes on wheels uh ownership would preclude what are increasingly cooperative ownership models for um for land development and and that is particularly in the affordable housing industry. And when I say affordable housing industry I don't mean deed restricted affordable housing. I mean affordable by design or missing middle income housing. So not deed restricted but but by design it's more affordable than bricks and mortar sightuilt uh construction. Tiny homes on wheels is a very good example of that. Modular housing, factory build housing is also uh a good example of that. Those models are limited equity I cite them here. Uh market rate equity group equity etc. where folks gather together, join forces, strike a a legal a legally binding um relationship to develop and share the equity of that development. Um most in most organized um manifestations, those are uh what are referred to um as as community land trust and and Swiss County Land Trust is a very good example of that locally. Um so it's a very good model to fit into that. um aesthetics. I will say that there was a a little bit of of discussion related to the again confusing the typology between um a mobile home um a manufactured home uh and even an RV park um and and tiny

homes on wheels villages. Uh I try to uh compare the sets of standards here locally. Um we we are of course are deliberating that this evening. Um and as we all know well seen this ordinance a few times. Um the regulations for design go far and above um which those which are um applied to manufactured housing which are state regulated and are done so with intent to keep the expense of those manufactured units low by not setting a high design standard. typically high design standards, sighting, roof pitch, um very unique uh sets of standards that reinforce local design character typically relate to or transition translate to higher cost per unit per square foot because they are less standardized. They they they are they would uh it's less likely that they be built in a factory to standard specifications. Uh whenever you diversify local standards for construction, you're adding cost uh of that construction. So that's why manufactured homes all look like manufactured homes. Um mobile homes all look like mobile homes. They are certified by HCV at the state and they are delivered to site. The city has all local municipalities have no regulatory authority over what those look and feel like. They are allowed by law and all we do at a local level is foundations and the utility hookup. Everything else is allowed by right if they come certified from the state. What we're saying here with tiny homes fund wheels is that we're not only saying that they pass certain standards for mobility with respect to an um and they also uh comply

with certain standards for tiny homes on wheels uh insulation most directly by increasing the R value requirement of of insulation. forcing that construction standard into a stick built on site project not a prefabricated HCD certified product. So at the very fundamental level um these these are two very different animals. They look feel like it and they behave like it um from a utility efficiency standpoint. Um, finally, um, and maybe it goes without saying, particularly in light of what I just said, but local control is is critical here. Um, if we're going to explore, um, if your recommendation is to move forward to council with this, uh, exploring a new housing typology, uh, within a community that is very design sensitive, uh, uh, it you need to make sure you have a robust set of standards to to retain local control. Municipal autonomy is being lost um as a as a product of uh state legislation particularly around housing. Um communities are are vulnerable to that. Um unless uh you develop standards, design and construction related standards um to uh to to render your local review a robust so that you can you have the regulatory discretionary teeth uh to to require a higher design standard and that's what this entire initiative is is trying to do. So if it's design that you're concerned with we need to drill into the details of that design. If it's mobility or other concerns related to potentially

tangentially related to uh to ownership um I'm trying to assuage those concerns by analysis uh this evening. And that's why I separated these two. Let's get this ownership thing out of the way. Um if there if there's more detailed stuff you're concerned about, then let's let's continue uh that that that thought and and and and pour it into the second item on the agenda. Um as usual, uh this the action fails to meet the definition of a project under SQL. Uh so that is um that is irrelevant in this discussion. Uh the in the most recent legislation at the state level uh has made more robust um exemptions related to housing. Um not just affordable housing but all types of uh cottage scale multifamily housing meaning one unit on sorry multiple units on one project. Those rise to a multif family definition in the building code. The nest is the most recent example of that. Individual cottages, not um well, it was a mixed product type project, but it's the most relevant in your example or your experience. Uh and we and by by staff's judgment, that project uh falls within our objective design standards. Um the courtyard cottage uh scale design technology. Uh and we we discussed that at length. Um and and that is very much applicable to uh tiny home villages uh by by the by the standard in in the ordinance. Uh so with that I'll I'll pause and take questions um and hopefully move forward.

Great. Thank you. I appreciate that our discussions last month have led to more depth of analysis that we can work off of. So thank you for that. Um, David, do you want to start? Uh, I mean, I'm still, as I stand the last time, I don't want them in R2 and R3. It's basically an RV park. You can call it whatever you want to call it, but people are allowed to move in and out with a trailer. There's no difference between that and RV park. You're just regulating what is on. Okay.

And I mean, last meeting, Jeff, you said they move annually and then this You're trying to say they move two to three times in a lifetime, you know, every time. Yeah. My my recommendation this evening was the product of more research. Wasn't your research based on people you knew and how often they move them? Yes, it was more anecdotal last time and this time around I I I reached out to jurisdictions as I said and and and refined my recommendation. So yeah,

but even with it set up to where they move annually, it still allows them to be uh move with the weather. Come here in the summer, move to Arizona in the winter, move back here in the summer. Well, that would be twice a year. They It'd be once a year. They'd move in in one year, out in the same year, and then annually the next year they'd be able to move back in again. They leave in January and they come back the following June. If they come in June and leave in November, they can come back the next June and leave in November. No, no, no. That would that wouldn't be annually time, not one year. Would that be one year? No. June to June. One year, right?

Yeah, but that would be 12 months,

right? So, they could only Okay, maybe we need to clear this up. My understanding of this is the um tiny home on wheels can only have there can only be one action each year. Either it moves in or moves out. Is that so the way I wrote this was to restrict movement to once within 12 months. So it says toe movement on andor off site shall be limited to no more than annually. So if you come in in June, you can leave and it's like having a essentially a year lease on your apartment.

So snowbirds wouldn't cut it. Snowbirds can't do it. Well, if you came in came in January and you wanted to hang out and ski for for the winter, um you couldn't decide that you know you wanted to leave six months later. you you'd need to move again or you know six month 12 months later or after. Okay. So that all right to state it more clearly. It is an annual Yeah. one time one in a year not two. All right. Thank you. All right. Does that help David? Does that clear that up for you?

Yeah. Well, that makes it even more in my mind that if you move forward with this, the popularity would decrease even more. They typically are like to be used annually to follow the weather or whatever the people want to do. I don't think we have to I'm not saying people wouldn't do that. I don't know if that would be the typical use. If people are moving three times in the lifespan of a 30y year lifespan housing unit, that means on average they're they're moving once every 10 years. according to what Jeff just told us. Also, it's not easy to move. Yeah, it is.

No, it's not. Did you read that? Yeah, but you can also construct one that can be moved easily. I don't think so. Yeah, you could make one small enough that you could tow it behind a normal vehicle. But you could also make That's not a tiny home. Yeah, it is. I don't think so. I've never seen one that can be hauled behind a truck. Jeff, can we go back to the size of tiny homes? What they will be? What's the smallest? We know that we know what the largest is, but what's the smallest?

Yeah, 400 square ft uh is the standard. Uh typically the height limits uh push the 14 foot highway limit. Um again, what you're doing by this ordinance is establishing a standards within a village context that you have the authority to approve. You set a minimum size. This is I'm hearing that David's concern is that you can build you can have a teeny teeny tiny home and therefore move it easily and move it often. Is that what I hear you saying? Of course you could.

Well, the restriction would still apply regardless of size. Uh, I think that I mean if someone wants to own a a resident a residence um a structure that they occupy as a primary dwelling unit. Uh, and they're doing so to hopefully develop some equity in that product. Uh, and and they're costconscious. Uh, then yeah, it is possible for one to to build something construct something as long as it meets the rest of our standards. It looks and smells like a tiny home and not a manufactured home, meets all of our standards, why would we hold the unit size to a higher standard than we do any other residential typology in town? We have no minimum unit size in this in our municipal code right now. Um I I still think that uh this circular logic around trying get at movement through various restrictions of size or ownership um is an errand that I I don't want to I I recommend you not chase. Um if you if you're concerned about movement then then address movement. Don't don't address something that is coincidental to or has some perceived correlation to because it's it's just non-factual based on on my on staff's research

and I have actually done some research um my own going to different tiny house villages and speaking to people and finding out what what they are doing there and uh to your point David um some people do travel away from their tiny home but they leave it for weather. You're talking about weather. That was one of your concerns was people are going to chase the weather. So, people leave their tiny home and come back to it. So, that that's that's what I have seen in the two tiny home villages that I've visited is that that's that's the pattern. Not that they're getting up and moving the tiny home, but they're actually going somewhere for four months reprieve from the weather and coming back. So, if your concern is the R2 and R3 We could look at that aspect and move the R2 because R3 is dense period. I don't care what you put on it.

Where are RV parks currently allowed under ordinance? Jeff, I I kind of am tired of you saying it's an RV park. It is an RV park. It is not an RV. It's the exact same operational. It doesn't have an engine. Neither does the trailer. Neither does the fifth wheel. So I think that we're not going to agree on that piece of it. So let's get to where we do agree. I have clear I think that your image is is tied up with I think the motion but not the aesthetics of it.

The movement piece. The movement piece is your is your concern. No, it's my objection to it is that There's no difference between developing a site and leasing out pads to somebody with a tiny home and developing a site and leasing out pads to somebody with an RV. I want to make one that only allows Airstream. There's no difference between saying I want an RV park that only allows airirstreams and I want a tiny home village. Operationally, I can say I only want an Airstream place where they have to be there for a year. There's no difference between that and a tiny home village. So I found operationally

a piece of this that I found compelling after um going through this process in this last month was the building equity piece. And even though an Airstream is, you know, a pretty spiffy RV and maybe they do appreciate in value, generally most other RVs don't because they're designed to be inexpensive or, you know, the materials are not, you know, always, not always, but generally they're not constructed in a way that the value appreciates over time or that you build equity. And so the piece that to me became much more compelling is that there are models for somebody for entry into building wealth with equity into something because those doors are pretty closed with the high cost of housing. A condo is a way some people can get in or you know living in a place that has you know that is pretty remote or it looks like this provides another opportunity for people to build equity and maybe move into something else if they want to. So that I found compelling. Um but so that was to your point that how this is different from an RV park. I think that is importantly one of the ways and for me a compelling way that this is different but everybody needs to speak. So any do we have anything else from you on this David? I want to make sure everybody else gets to

No, I I I mean I don't think that they appreciate and value Or maybe they hold their value. I don't know. Did maybe Jeff, can you speak to that? Do they did the tiny homes on wheels appreciate andor hold their value or do you know in terms of the equity building piece? What about Evan? Maybe you know. Evan, do you know before you go

if tiny homes on wheels either hold their value or appreciate in value in speaking to the building equity piece of this housing option? Yeah, because they're framed like houses, I think they uh equity and value build and grow in the same way. Um the trailer element does change that a little bit, but um in my experience, I think that they're just as robust. They have similar lifespan. Um so they should behave similarly. I I haven't heard anything about like speculative investment with tiny houses. I don't know if that exists. I don't me for me more is about somebody spends their money on something like this and it'll hold their value and again it builds some equity.

Yeah, it totally does and it's just that's mostly a product of its longer lifespan. Yeah, thanks. Yeah. Yeah. Appreciate your comment. Thank you. Okay. Um, team blended, do you have some more to

I like the uh fact that the difference I see because I have an RV is that these are winterized. They have insulation that's hardcore. They have pitched roofs. Uh, so they're able to handle the snow, which or if we ever get snow again. Um, but nevertheless, they're they're the design standard is the design standard of more like a house than an Alan, I support the idea of increasing, you know, housing options, affordable housing, and this is, I think, a reasonable way to do it. Okay, Cindy Lee,

I agree with Alan that this is important to consider increasing our housing for workforce by providing tiny house, tiny houses. And these are that uh are are built to last and much needed in our area. Okay, I'm going to open it up to the public since this is a public hearing and we'd love to get your input. Um if you'd like to come speak to us, come up the mic, introduce yourself. You've got three minutes.

I'm a little confused. I'm Rachel Streeter and um is the problem that you want to be able to assess these for tax values for the city and the county. Okay. So, is the you're just worried that they're not structurally okay for living? I that one I don't really know, but and I hear from Evan that appendix Q has not passed in this county. So, I don't know what standard you're asking for. these tiny houses to be built and I've read appendic so I know about that and I also know about the 10-ft rule that if the elevation of the roof is more than 10 ft from the ground your neighbor has a right to ask you to move it if you park it in a view area so there's that also and that's I think already instated in the laws here that if it's a view impact it has to be moved So this 14 foot thing you're talking about for the height and the 400 square f feet. I mean 400 feet is huge if you ask me. So um I I hear that you want a quality of life and a period of structure. Um but those can also be built on a foundation. So it doesn't have to be a movable thing that people come in and people leave. Uh they could also on a foundation if property was set aside for that. So, I'm I'm not sure if you're just wanting them to be really good quality um structures. And a lot of those that you can buy from a place actually have plans and they meet certain Rs for um

for insulation and that. And anything with a crawl space is dupious. if you've got an insulated crawl space for water and such as any homeowner will tell you, it could freeze or not freeze. So, I'm not sure we're going if the problem is if it's not making tax money for the city or if it's just a transient sort of living situation, then stay safe because you don't want a transient living situation. I'm not real sure which it is. And so that's all I I have to say about that. Um I'm I'm a little confused. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Anything else?

Aloha.

There you go. My name is Neilandu. My friends call me AA. I live here in Mchester. And so I'm kind of excited about this topic. It's been around for a long time. Been in and out of here for 10 years. More recently five years consistent, but that was 10 years ago when these topics came. And so it's nice to see that it's more on the forefront, front burner, front of the mind now than ever before, which is kind of crucial. I know city council just kind of feeling the pressure of cash flow when expenses are higher and cash flow is necessary and talking about cuts but um I've always come with the indigenous background and so my only thoughts is that we always looked at seven generations deep and that's just the way it's always been governed looked over long periods of time for long So like 100,000 acres for 100,000 years. And the way the councils worked was they always thought seven generations deep. And so I'm just here uh throwing wind in your sails, throwing logs on your fire. I think you as a committee council is definitely going in the right direction because according to my little map, our population will probably be dropping in half in the next decade or two. And if our elders and baby boomers and wisdom flamekeepers are graduating and ascending and our next generation, which is mine, and the kids below me, have no place to be here, there's going to be a double split of the young leaving and the old leaving in the next 10 years. I said this 10 years ago. I don't want to be here every decade saying the same

thing. So, I'm super happy that we have a somebody with friends and personal relationships to get some info from, including multiple organizations, jurisdictions, and places. So, thank you for your wisdom, David. You're awesome. Thanks for being kind of stern, stubborn on your side. It brings a dynamic that we have to talk about. So, I encourage you to continue the way you are. Love you in the middle. You're a great mediator. Just hold the balance of both. Amazing. And I love the right side over here and this is in the middle. And my little thoughts is that no matter what you do about mobility, the future will be mobile. The future, my generation and the next generation, they will all be on Wi-Fi. They will come here and enjoy the mountain. They might leave their tiny house here and go to Sedona just like anybody with a regular house. Just like any other baby boomer that does that today. Whether you're in a tiny house, it doesn't matter. Um, it's taxable. I think there's a revenue there, but I just I'm encouraging this company to keep going. You're doing a really good job. Really impressed about it. From what I'm hearing, I'm almost thinking about setting up a manufacturing company with your specifics here in town because what you're talking about is a design with super insulation and super trailer with super length, super height, super zone, whatever. in x amount of time from now, a year from now, two years from now, there's no reason why we couldn't create a manufacturer right here that's with these specs because it would be rented immediately. Immediately. Every tiny house that you ever put on this place, if it's a thousand bucks in rent or less, it's immediately rented. The demand is so high, the supply is so low. And I'm talking for my generation and lower. and still am super excited about

where we're going. Be open to the fact that mobility is it's only going to get stronger in the future. So less restrictions like we're talking about here design blocking the view. You're going in the right direction. All the little things will come as we go. So good job. I'm happy to be here. So just want to blow some good energy and positive vibes your way. Proud of you. Aloha. Thank you.

Hi, I'm my name is Natalie Shiveley. I also live here in Mount Chasta. Um I am newer uh you know six years. If that's still considered new around here, I'm not sure. Uh but I originally came here as a parent of two young kids, ages three and five. And I can speak from the standpoint of a single mom trying to find a place to live in this town, nearly impossible. My kids and I at one point was in a hotel because there's no place to live here. Uh I got on a waiting list and I was fortunate to get a subsidized apartment, but those options are very few in this county. Um Let's be honest, the there's not a lot of options for great paying work here either, especially if you've got young kids. So, what we have here overall is a lot of layers that make it very hard for young people and young families to make it. If you're not from here or if somebody didn't hand you a property or you didn't buy it decades ago, you're kind of in a bad position right now. I can tell you the place where I happen to be fortunate enough to have a place a roof over my kids head. Their average reading list right now is three years. Three years to get on a list and hope to God you don't freeze to death for three winters. That's no way for families to live. So I appreciate everyone wants something beautiful. We all want something beautiful. Even those of us who are, you know, maybe struggling a little financially, everyone wants something beautiful. If the aesthetics is the issue, I mean, we'll do the can, but ultimately we have a crisis with housing here. Even people that can afford a reasonable amount. Good luck finding a place. There's hardly anything available. It gets scooped up like that because there's nothing available.

There's so much empty lots that are ready to go. There's everything's in place and nothing happens. It's a hard place to be. And so we look to the future. Yeah, there's real risk of this population declining way more and there's not a lot of opportunity for jobs around here. We got to start doing something serious to make real solutions that are going to help the whole community. And the only way we're going to do that is if you know we can we can kind of be a little more open to other ideas, even if it's not something you would maybe choose for yourself or your family. We have to make sometimes realistic compromises. It's not going to tank the whole community. It might be a bridge that brings us to building something that's going to actually last long term. Okay. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um thank you folks for um putting in your two cents. I'm going to close the public hearing. Uh let's do we have more questions, comments? Uh Sydney Lee, do you have any more comments questions around this this piece that we're has to and the first section has to do with ownership. Correct. And then we'll move on to the second part which has aesthetics and design and lots of other things. So um I think we need to get through this piece first. So

I have no question. Okay. Alan I'm open to differentship. I'm open to different ownership models. rentals and that sort of thing at least I think we need to be open to different options for for housing. I'm good. Good. I'm still opposed to R2 and R3. I think it's a fine idea just not R2 and R3.

Okay. I have a question. Uh when you said there was uh I don't know code designing remorse around overregulation. Um did you have examples of that from the other areas other uh I think it was uh Humble County

that indicated that their village uh individual tiny homes was taking off as as ADUs uh villages they had established a set of standards that were I reviewed the ordinance I used it as a model for ours I I think by comparison, ours goes a little further. We we have a little more rigorous set of standards particularly around landscaping. Um we tie in our objective design standards, the cottage courtyard typology. So it gives you another layer of discretion to be more discretionary, more subjective in your interpretation. Um, and I think that Humble County was faced with a market that was less um, elastic when it came to those kinds of concerns. In other words, higher bar for design, more expense for something other than the unit itself, site amenities, etc. Um, was was a bridge too far for by their estimation for for villages. So, they they've got no villages in almost a year and a half with the ordinance. They do have individuals uh individual tiny homes on wheels that they can use.

So they overregulated the landscaping piece. I guess I the the site related standards that they standards the design standards for the unit

were just as robust as ours. Group pitch siding, cladding, window mullings, double pane windows, insulation requirements and so on. Uh but but and tiny homes typically most most people that are building tiny homes like site built tiny homes are doing so uh to minimize travel distance between uh supply and demand. So to the public commenter's point to develop a construction industry at a local level is going to increase the affordability decrease the transportation costs. Um and those standards are automatically met because they're being built to suit the market and being built to suit snowload and being built to suit context. So, uh, my feeling is that after speaking to these folks that, um, if you require more robust local standards, you're going to get more robust local product built locally. Uh, that's the value. That's where you have site control. You have unit control from a design and development standpoint. And if you are permitting these, you're providing that entitlement and not HCD. Uh, you're in control of the look and the feel of these things to ensure that they look very much different by their very DNA uh from from a from an RV or or a manufactured home.

And so did you in comparing what are what's been proposed so far to what Humble County did, did you think that was similar in terms of site design, the site standards?

I think so. But to reiterate, I think that we actually go a step further because are incorporating by reference our objective design standards. Um Humble County I don't believe did that and don't have objective design standards. So the thought was that if by virtue of the general plan land use, excuse me, the general plan housing element having a program that specifies tiny home villages um to implement state law. Uh and this is particularly for missing middle housing. Uh and to develop objective design standards to further our compliance with state housing law. Uh and then to go further to incorporate both those documents by reference into this legislation is very much in line with the intent of not only our general plan um but we're we're bringing the municipal code into alignment with the general plan and that by law is your charge. You can find that. I can cite that specifically if if you were to give me a little time, but you are cited both both in our municipal code and state statute that provides for your existence to ensure that those two documents are aligned. And that's what the that's what you're being charged with tonight is to evaluate that. And one more thing on ownership is do we have would you say then that we have um with what's proposed the flexibility of a range of ownerships from an own an owner developer creating a place that would have tiny homes on wheels to rent or a hybrid where a developer would have potentially some bill some onsite that they own that they rent and some places where somebody could bring their own and something that is owner that the tiny homes on wheels

owner moves to a place and leases their spot. Do we have that whole range of owner opportunity?

I think if I understand your question um DAP's response is to face silent on ownership and what that does is it deregulates the market. the market will deliver itself. Um developers, homeowners, home builders speculate um primarily for um ground cost. So and and and unit cost. Um they also regulate um by comparison um certainty of schedule to having a rooftop ready for them. Time is a developer's enemy. Uh so by remaining silent on ownership in other words deregulating ownership you're providing more certainty in the approval process and less regulation delivering the unit to market. You're you're allowing the market to deliver itself to flourish. You're not overregulating which is the concern I I I I discovered uh in in humble. So why not regulating the hybrid one model or the other model are all possible

and who knows what else who knows what else those so decides to deliver and rent some and sell some then okay thank you all right team question any more questions so um from the standpoint of permits taxes you know taxes and permits and does do they what kind of permits do they need? Do they get a a home or developer has to pay permits to the you know pay to the park and all the other things that we do? How do these work in that situation?

They're given a land use permit by by planning staff. Uh so that's the first bar they need to clear. So compliance with this ordinance would be would be the measure for that. And secondly, they're given a building permit um when that unit is when the site that it's being delivered to complies with those standards. And that that is construction related uh pad access utilities uh just like an ADU or just like a courtyard for example. Um the idea is that we're trying to set up at least two points at which we can as as a regulating body control the outcome and if uh if if the site standards are too ownorous you know we're discovering that or I'm learning through outreach that uh you can overregulate and develop a set of standards that are costly to comply with and that that was we're trying to find that balance point. So, if you're allowing a a project to come through by right um with a conditional use permit, uh then uh you will see that project, you'll get to evaluate it. they will if they pass your standard evaluation then then they will be issued a land use permit or what we're calling a tiny homes on wheels permit uh which includes all the you know the rigor meeting all the rigorous design standards we have including uh CCNRs and the homeowners association to ensure that they're complied with uh and then secondly that that with that entitlement in hand they move on to the the building the construction side of it uh and these things will need to be constructed locally. So, it's possible that we could even construct them to ensure that they substantially conform, which is a legal term of reference. Substantial performance is a discretionary judgment on the part of

the regulating authority. Sometimes it's you, sometimes it's me uh or or the planning staff uh to ensure that the construction uh thing complies with the built item, the built tiny homes on wheels does comply uh substantially with what you approved uh in in your tiny home on wheels land use. So we got two looks at it. Long answer your question.

Isn't the openership model somewhat at odds with shared amenities. If you had a development site where you had um let's say you developed lawn area shelter and that sort of thing out well uh in my experience you know again in other jurisdictions the short answer is no. Um, HOAs and CCNRs are very common uh and with to provide for private streets, parks, amenities to to uh to to amenitize a development project. So, they they tend to be associated with more exclusive developments um because they are ownorous and they're expensive. Uh and so you see higher price point uh projects uh that are want control uh every bit of activity that takes place within their project. So it includes streets and curbs and gutters uh parkways amenities and so on.

If we have a minimal we're looking for minim minimizing we don't want a whole lot of expense. We want these projects to be affordable. Um HOAs as you say can be expensive to maintain to manage. Um maintaining uh the people that run real challenge um I think we need to be careful about how that's done. I think it would be a challenge to maintain the quality initially. Not saying we shouldn't do it. I'm just saying that I mean there's one thing we need to do this landscape improvements maintenance somebody did or messed up the roof on the shelter something like that can you have an HOA if you're property owner. I mean, wouldn't it just be a rental agreement at that point? If I own this land and have these spots and these other people live in these plots, is it really a HOA or is it a rental agreement between me, the land owner, and the people that live in these spots?

Well, it does say home owners assoc, you know, home HOA. Having administered these before, I I can tell you that we would still call it a homeowners association. We would have one owner instead of multiple owners, and it would be that individual owner's responsibility for complying with municipal code measures related to site maintenance and management. Um, however they pull that off, whether it's a rental agreement or not, it's up to them. We would still require that regulatory tool, wouldn't it? owns something.

I gotcha. Yeah. But let's say owner three scenario together. Then he sells one of the three they initially built in the other guys or then moves on or whatever. And does he sell the in the final purchase? Is he selling the responsibility or is the person that acquired that property taking responsibility making sure this all happens? I'm not tracking the question. He's saying are they transferable ownership? Yes. And as is their role in the HOA.

Yes. Yes. There's there's there's a legal set of standards around HOAs for sure that is conventional within California statute. I don't have it on call at the moment, but I've administered them for and they are very valid from a a code enforcement standoint. Aren't they kind of awful though? Oh, yeah. I mean, they're they can be ownorous and they can be they can be a pain to comply with. Absolutely. Um, some of them go so far as to regulate, you know, amplified music after 10, let's say, um, which

garbage can or garbage cans or you name it. Yeah. Now, we're you guys you in a village context for tiny homes on wheels will regulate that. Um, you you could get an applicant in here that says this is owner estimate. It's going to cost me too much. And then you you barter. You say staff will give you a recommendation saying um this these these these CCNRs are too ownorous. Uh we recommend that in other words we don't come up with one they do. So the developer is going to come or the homeowner is going to come. Association will come and say here's our CCN office. Do you approve them? D will look at them and we'll we'll use some discretion to ensure that they don't go too far that they go far enough to make sure that the project complies with the ordinance. For example, if we don't have screened uh let's see what's a better example. If we don't have noise restrictions beyond the municipal code to go above and beyond you can't play you can't play your guitar in your backyard after 8:00 or uh or some other measure that's already handled or implemented within the municipal code. We won't go above and beyond. We'll leave it we'll leave it at that. That would be staff's recommendation coming coming forward. um in my experience it has been uh you you wouldn't go above and beyond the existing municipal code to enforce code.

So I have a question about a community land trust as an option. So the community land trust would be the one who designed the HOA and then they would bring it to the city. Is that correct? Yeah. The legal relationship is between the individual occupants or owners um and and and the the the legally uh responsible entity in this case it would be the community land trust and whatever legal structure they set up between the two parties.

So what's the one to get developed but it sounds like the development costs out exceed the profit potential. So that's probably why they were never developed because development site. There's no payback on it. Not quick return for a developer. Um, but what is this? What would be the process if if I'm the developer and I get an applicant that wants to move there? the process to get because once they need to get a building permit or permit to move in make sure the tiny house that they want to move into the village meets the design standards of the state.

Yeah. So what we would do is let's say there's how is that regulated? A village tiny home village is permitted u movement is restricted annually and a year Someone moves in, they move out. And is your question if someone else moves in, how do we ensure that they comply? I develop a tiny home village with no tenants. So I just develop a tiny home village with no tenants. So there is no buildings to certify or say meet the design standards when I develop. It's no different than any other type of construction.

It's our construction. Well, it would be. So, that's the difference. So, these things are going to be built most likely locally. If if they're not, then what we do is they appear like a manufactured home, but they're subject to our standards. So, they're built elsewhere and they're drug on site and they're provided. We we you everybody in this room get a look at those standards at the time of entitlement. And then individual units are owned by other individuals and are drugged to site. So you're asking how do we ensure that that previously constructed unit complies with our standards.

Correct. Okay. You get to look at it, but you get you get a you get a photo of it. You get an elevation of it. I guess who's who's going to be the overseer that They are reviewed before they just the home is it part of the HOA that the developer is not allowed to move anybody in unless

they're aware of the they're aware of the municipal code requirements for whatever their site ultimately builds out to look like. So they know one two um just like any other project um if it's built and doesn't substantially conform with what the entitlement says then they're rejected. But the operating model of this isn't building per se. The operating model is you you approve an aesthetic for a project and you you approve uh construction for a project. Um you you approve site configurations for a project. All of that is based on what we see in paper illustrative. But my site development has no buildings on it when I built it.

All right. So, so right. So, what is the trigger and when? So, say it takes two years for this site to be filled. Does each and you know say there's six of them. So every time before when somebody applies to move and each applicant has to come to planning commission

the CCNRs would specify how that transpires. So essentially what we're saying we would have a we would have a component that says um the project you're entitling uh has we would require illustrations to show what these tiny homes look like. Uh we would require uh illustrations site plan to show what those common amenities would look like. And then the CCRs would say, as soon as you begin to build this or manifest this in a physically apparent way, then we look at it. And so we get a photo of it. And I think the the best way to do it would say, "We want to see a photo of this unit. You guys get to look at it. They come in here before you. We we're expecting four deliveries tomorrow or providing your approval. Here's a photo of the unit uh or an illustration of the unit uh and you approve it or not

and plans. I mean, you know, it would go just like any just like a cottage courtyard project or a, you know, a condominium project, you know, we see those illustrations. We're lucky. We see uh we see renderings, photos, installations, we see everything. And those are I don't see that the review project would be any different. Um We've had projects where uh they've been built and they don't comply and we require that they comply. And so that means you remedy the non-compliance. And so for each new unit, you know, lot C, the guy moves out, another guy's coming down, they'll get a photo of that unit.

You absolutely will. And it'll be in the same and it's enforceable. And you guys get to make that decision. Any development in any tiny home village comes to you. I actually see that as a hindrance of wanting this to

I see this as a hindrance of wanting these things to actually be successful. If you're going to have them built to appendix Q, then as much as I I mean I don't dislike them, but as much as I don't want them where I don't want them, I see that being a hindrance of them actually being successful. If every time somebody wants to come in, they have to go through this whole permitting process to get it approved by the city to move in. If you're going to say you will have a tiny home village and it's operated in allowing people to move in and out once a year, they shouldn't have to be reviewed by the city to move in if it meets appendix Q that the product that they're bringing in that piece

and appendic you're limiting I think you're right. I'm not disagreeing, you know. I mean There's a 100,000 tiny homes out there in the world. How many are actually going to meet these design standards that we want in our tiny homes? Well, and that's part of what he said in his intro was the more ownorous our standards are potential for decreasing the potential success of the project, right? But we have to have snow load requirements. There's a lot of stuff we have to have.

That's probably part of the deal. Yeah. This is this is beyond that when we get to design standards. So instead of coming to planning commission, we have our objective design standards approval committee on. So that seems potentially a way to mitigate that expense of coming before the whole planning commission.

To me, if you approve a project that allows tiny homes, there should be no at that point there should be no more involvement from the city, I would say, unless they find them grossly out of code compliance on ones that they allow in. So, so but it's

so let me let me let me address that. So, the way this would work is the CCNR would would specify that uh spike control um and individual tiny home design are inextricably linked. There is a responsible party. Um PCNRS would further say that every new tiny home must have a have approval to be part of the tiny home village to meet our standards. Um they would they would come to planning staff with a request. Planning staff would seek discretion and say uh you discretion and say this one obviously needs it. This one may not. Um this one uh clearly does not. Um and we would come forward to you um at the next uh scheduled regular planning commission meeting um and we would formulate a recommendation. This this one is part of a village and it's clearly does not have a pitch roof. It doesn't have double pane windows. These are objective measures, right? Uh so I think that the evaluation would be timely. I think that the um decision and the deliberation would be clear and objective and um I don't see any reason that it would be um in any way um would any way dissuade someone from from choosing this this housing typology because there may be a delay of nowhere nowhere beyond 60 days of time between them coming to the counter and you guys weighing in on it.

How about But if I could move my tiny home to KOA and set up in KOA without having to go through any of those restrictions versus going to this tiny home village that has these restrictions. Why would I choose the tiny home? Well, first of all, there's an assumption there that the KOA has room for tiny homes. I don't think they do um because of the vertical clearances. Um and and secondly, um if you if where you're headed with this is you want to reduce the regulations to induce them, then make a proposal. I'm just worried that you're going to cause it to not be successful if you overregulate.

So, right, what I think is to your point, um I think your time the timing piece on that makes sense, although hopefully we'll have, you know, what's your Well, anyway, into the future hopefully that we can do that. But secondly, there's a greater cost coming to the full planning commission as opposed to I mean that's been a goal we've been working on this sort of putting ourselves out of business is having this ministerial approval and what is the increased cost of coming through the chair if I may. Um this is this is just like any new code any new code is is fluid. This is a typology that is um doesn't have a lot of precedent and there's risk involved. You go too far, do you not go far enough? Um I heard that you all were very concerned about this mobile housing typology um not fitting context. That's why this is robust. That's why there's a regulatory rigor here. Um should it be some sort of constraint to delivery of the desired marketplace then you guys can change it you can lower the bar. Um if in a year um this is required to be reviewed annually. If in a year this we we get a handful of folks that come in and say hey you know it's a bridge too far. Sorry going to go elsewhere going to go up the weed. then we'll you'll hear about it from staff. Um and and and and furthermore, there's no there's no reason in fact it's quite conventional that an applicant when discovering a regulation wouldn't speak of variance and that's that's your within your discretion. So there are there are measures within our municipal code to provide flexibility for the code um particularly with respect to new code.

I appreciate you addressing the the fact that this is there's no precedent for this. This is new. So, we will be learning as we go and I have confidence in this and this team certainly that we will definitely apply the knowledge to what we're learning and and make the changes that need to be made. I I think we had with good staff. Um I think that we could rely on staff review um in these initial stages if this goes forward. I'd like us to be a little more involved than not at this point.

I think that is a good point. Um kick tires for a couple years and then see what happens. It's easier to back off than it is to we are kind of going into think we're drifting into the next. Sorry. Okay. Well, let's um so I think your point maybe we do we have enough information to um settle on this item around ownership. Do we have a motion or some discussion of a motion?

What I need the right verb is feed it to me. Well, I don't know what your is in your head, so I And

I I can I can make it a simple if you go to the recommendation. Um the motion simply would be uh to prohibit ownership of tiny homes on wheels in R2 and R3. That that's the motion. So you're you all are voting to either support or prohibit your a yes vote would prohibit ownership. Okay. So based on my reading the tea leaves, we're going to get one yes vote for this motion and four no votes just to read my tea leaves. If if you support ownership diversity, you're going to vote no for this recommendation. Okay. How do you make that?

Well, I think you could say All right, I'll um I think Oops, I was on the right wrong page. I'm not the only one who doesn't know the person. Okay, I think you don't you can just say that um you could support uh you could support not regulating ownership in in tiny homes on wheels in R2 and R3. But I don't know what works what maybe what works easier for you. You want us to just um quote the recommendation and that'd be easier for you. Okay, Lee, you want to quote it?

I'm still lost on how it reads right now. Page five. Yeah, I'm there. I make a motion that we approve the recommendation Staff recommendation. How we're doing so far? Okay. I didn't see that. First recommendation is to remain silent. Silent. Yeah. So they Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. So you're you're contradicting yourself. No. To remain silent would be Okay, I'm ready. I'm just trying to simplify the the motion here. It's either to prohibit ownership or to stay silent on ownership. Those are your two choices.

Okay, I'm ready. I'd like to propose that we have I would like to a motion to vote on prohibiting the ownership of individual tiny houses on wheel in R2 and R3 zones. Okay. So, we have a roll call vote, please. Uh, Commissioner. Sorry. What was that? Roll call vote. We everybody do it individually. So, you should start at the other end with more people had more practice. Okay. Commissioner McDall, I don't understand the motion. It's to the motion is to prohibit ownership. Do you want to prohibit ownership?

You want to proh prohibit individual ownership in R1 and R2. So if you want to prohibit it, which I think you want to prohibit it, then you would say yes, then I get yes. Yay. I don't I don't Yeah. I I think we're coming at this backwards compared to our normal desires. I'm sorry. I was trying to simplify it and I obviously went too far. How about how about we just simply say uh staff's recommendation is to remain silent on ownership. You want to remain silent on ownership. That's another better way to put it. Can do you feel like retracting your motion?

I'll retract it with with great regret. Now, would you like to make a motion to um How about if I'll make a motion, which I hardly ever do, um to remain silent on tiny home ownership of tiny homes on wheels in any No, that would be in any zone. Yeah. The ordinance remains silent on ownership. that the ordinance would remain silent on ownership in any zone in our municipal code for tiny homes on wheels. Okay, that's my motion. Is the motion clear? Yes. Okay, Commissioner McDow. Do we have a second?

Sorry. Second. Sorry. Second roll call vote. Nay. Okay. Commissioner Finley I. Commissioner Belinda I. Commissioner I. Commissioner I Okay. Um, motion passes 4 to one. Um, thank you team. That wasn't easy, but we got through it. All right. This is a learning moment. Thank you for the learning moment. All right. Well, I I think I have never run into anything that said to be silent. And that's what confused the heck. Oh, yeah. I know. I apologize.

You're fired. Yeah, I'm fired. Well, that's right. It's too soon. All right. Um, next item team. Uh, our next item is our um public hearing again. So, if folks want to chime in, please do. Um, regarding our meth municipal code amendment, tiny homes on wheels ordinance. Jeff, take it away.

Yeah, I'll be real short on this. Nothing's changed with the exception of adding section 1818040 general requirements. E uh movement restriction. Tiny homes on wheels movement on or off site shall be limited to no more than annually or as required for registration certification or related compliance at the discretion of the planning director. So we're adding that to the standards that this was sorry let me rephrase. This item was continued from uh the June meeting. We we reviewed the the ordinance at length. I presented the details. There were lots of discussions and we were hung up on one item and one item only and that was ownership. Now that we've resolved that um this motion is rather simple. It's just do you a support uh direction from from last or you change your mind based on what you thought or deliberated this evening that you want to reopen the rest of the ordinance and anything in that's fair game. Um, for the sake of clarity and simplicity, I'm just saying that the only remaining item from last meeting was the ownership. We seem to have resolved it. Um, what I'm talking about here is an addition to what you reviewed last month to regulate ownership to sorry, regulate movement, not ownership.

Okay. Is that it? Yeah. All right. Dam David, please. Just a clarification that What do you when no more than annually or is required for registration certification or related compliance? So, does that mean that like I don't know the plumbing goes out and it needs to be taken off site to I guess I'm trying to figure out what the second part of that

no registration and certification and related compliance is vehicle uh registration and certification for mobility on uh public uh roads. So there's a certification through ANZY which I understand is required. An inspection is required um prior to uh being uh uh being mobile on a public highway um or state highway. Uh and the reason that caveat is in there is staff's thought was that if these are site built u by an enterprising uh individual uh let's say someone buys land and builds these tiny homes on the same land uh and then uh which is allowed construction of of anything of of these might be allowed under the code. We needed a hook in here to ensure that if that village were part of a pre-approved tiny home village and they were built on that same site and they needed to be hauled off or transferred somewhere else for for lensure purposes we would allow that uh ideally and again this is new enough that I don't know if those licensing bodies are mobile enough they would come to the site and license these for uh certification for highway transport um I doubt it I think they need to be inspected offsite and so that provision in code is allowed That was helpful. Thank you. I appreciate that. Anything else, David?

No. Okay, Linda, is it still a tiny home? Can it be built locally and transported on a low bed, put into shape, dropped, or do they have to have their own? I missed the question. Can these be built on site? Yes. Somewhere and put on a a low bed trailer. Yes. Transported to the site. Yes. Put on its foundation. So the low bed trailer can be the wheels. That's what I'm asking.

As opposed to Sorry. No, the answer is no. I I missed your I missed. No, they have to be on chassis and mobile. Yeah. Tiny home on wheels. um a mobile home when they put in place having owned one years ago or it we they took the wheels and stuff in the carriage out. Yeah. But they left they dropped the unit on when they moved it they put it on a low bed. Um I'm not saying I'm not I'm just asking for information. Why couldn't it be on a low bed? Uh they wouldn't meet the definitional standard that we've established in the They need to be on the chassis. Okay.

Well, then it would just be a tiny village instead of tiny villages too. We already essentially allow those little I like this idea more. Okay. Anything else, Ellen? No, that was it. Okay. Cindy Lee, did you have any questions before I open up the public hearing? I'm good.

Okay. Thanks. All right. Um I'm going to open up the public hearing if anybody would like to come and speak to us. Um, please come to the podium, introduce yourself. You've got three minutes. Please, if you'd like to speak to us during our public hearing on this topic, which is sort of our second phase of the tiny homes on wheel ordinance, um we you're welcome to come up now during the public hearing and come to the podium, introduce yourself, and you have three minutes. Aloha.

Aloha. Great job.

I mean, overall, I mean, that's the best council I've seen in a long time. So, amazing. Good work. Great boat. I don't think you guys know how historic that little boat was. It affects a lot of generations. So, really good. I know we're making progress. Um, yeah, super excited about it. So, very good job. I know you have some reserves with R2 and R3. I know 10 years ago we were talking about Airbnbs and commercials C1, C2, C3, probably similar reservations but you know pushing forward. Um, I just support the the less regulation you push, the less I know our minds, especially inside of these types of consos, it likes to like just immediately go towards it's just a habit to go towards almost micromanaging control and where the future is going. It's a deterrent. It's a even like what David was saying, just the more you know if you brought it to the council that could be a deterrent already and nobody would show up. So like if the HOA guy, let's say I bought an R food, I became the HOA guy. I got trained by you guys in some training program. I got you gave me permission to represent you guys that the nine other tiny houses that come inside of my R2 will be held to your regulations. I got to answer to you. So I I advertise a bunch of people want to come to my place. I give them the paperwork that says, "Show me a picture of your house. Show me this jurisdiction or that committee of transportation, the committee of roof standard, the committee of installation and 2x4s, whatever, all the seven different documents that you guys need. And I represent them to you guys and say, "Hey, up to the up to your code, up to your Rubik's cube, this is all their paperwork. Looks like a green light. Here's a $40 fee or something, whatever.

Who cares?" It just makes it easier for them as an incentive for them to come in. And then maybe shared responsibility or shared accountability or shared whatever um tax revenues or things that you guys need. But maybe the HOA guy is the one that you guys are scary. Okay. The next generation doesn't want to come in front of a board. Yeah. My generation does not want to stand here.

They are tick tock 15 second no attention span. They are Instagram barely even social. They don't know how to handshake another in the eyes. They they have audience anxiety just because the cell phone kind of took over their minds and then they they the basic human interaction thing. This is scary for most people to come in front of a board. But if I was an HOA guy and I bought an R2 and I said, "I'm I'm not scared. I'll do your standard." They would come to me and it would be rented immediately. All of it. All the spots will be rented immediately. Cash flow would come in. The back door of all this is taxes. They're going to spend money at rays. They're going to spend money out of Chevron. They're the higher the labor force is, the more the incentive is for commercial buildings to come in. There's three minutes. Sorry. So, I'm just saying

you can wrap it up. Yeah. Thank you. just drop the standards and let the volume come in and let adjustments go as they come in. As they come in, you can adjust. So, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Aloha. Anybody else like to come and speak to us on this?

Hello, my name is Jonathan Shaw. Um, so I went through the uh I went through the process of permitting a very small ADU in my backyard and I have a permit from the city and I'm in the process of building it and what um given we have all these uh kind of wildfires in the area, I wonder uh if we could amend kind of the ADU code to allow tiny houses in people's backyards that you can move because mine's built on a foundation and it's fully permitted. But it would be really interesting to have a like a ADU that I actually move if there was a there was a fire and uh I don't know if that's possible but anyway that's all I had to say.

So thank you. Appreciate that. This ordinance does that. Yeah. It might not move quickly, but it can move, but it can. They The idea is the tiny homes on wheels move. Well, thank you. Anyone else? All right, I'm going to close the public hearing. Uh, team, I do have a question. Please do. Are how are I'm assuming tiny homes on wheels are taxed the same way as an RV would be or a boat or anything? It's a luxury tax.

Uh well the site ownership is taxed. So um you know that's passed on by you know if someone someone owns the land and they own an indiv individual tiny home that tiny home is not taxed locally. It's taxed regionally or at a state level through lensure. Um what is taxed is the value of the improvement on a given parcel and that that taxing responsibility is is borne by the owner of the parcel and and and it's up to the owner of the parcel to pass that on to through but if I own a tiny home it's taxed as

I'm assuming a luxury tax the same way a boat or an RV or a travel trailer or anything is. Yes. Yes. So then that you're you you are it's registered and and and you pay. Yeah. I just didn't know how they were anything new. Yeah. No.

Oh. Are we ready for a motion? And well let me maybe just Sorry about that. Uh let me check in um about how the team feels about the addition of the uh limitation on movement. If adding that is something new. We haven't really discussed it. Let me just make sure if somebody makes a motion how the team feels about that addition. It's on page eight. It's at the bottom.

I'm for it. I think some limits to the number of times it can be moved is reasonable. I'm not I'm assuming somebody comes in in April, they can move in April and somebody can come in September and move September. It's not like right just one year from there. I think

yes. As much as I'm against them in R2 and R3, I actually don't think you should have the movement aspect in it. If we're going to go if you're going to go ahead and go forward with this, take away movement thing or make the movement thing only applicable in R2 and R3 and C1 and C2 people can come and go as they please. I I don't I mean I think the argument of not having them moving in and out all the time disruption that causes I think there is some value to that

but I think that it's going to hinder the success of the ideology. Well I think To Jeff's point about typical movement being every decade, this may have no influence at all. I mean, to your point about snowbirds or

I think it's more the hindrance of somebody being forced to sign a one-year lease. You're basically forcing them into signing a one-year lease at this place. Well, I just my impression of this is that they're only required to stay a year and after that they could stay. Then after 13 months they could go or 17 months or a decade and a half that part doesn't matter. It's just that initial limitations, that movement limitation initially. But you're also I mean maybe I'm stretching my imagination of people who enjoy tiny homes, but maybe they're more the nomadic people and you're making them make decision that this is the place they want to stay for another year and maybe they do move around in their early days more often than once they find the place that they want to settle.

I am into encouraging people to down their roots and become part of the community. And the tiny homes are for our people that can't afford or find places to live that work at Barville or work for you or whatever, you know, that this gives them a little foot into permanence. from my place, you know,

but it I maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think that it's going to dramatically I mean, it might provide a opportunity to have a place to live, but I don't think it's going to lower the cost of a place to live by the time you buy a unit that's 60 $70,000 and pay a5 $600 flip fee a You're not really in the affordable housing context for one person. They don't gain equity. They own it.

Well, that's the piece that it sounds like and and then we got some verification was that you because this is constructed in a way that is more durable. you do if you own it or if you bought it with a on a loan, but you're paying on it similar to a mortgage that you actually do build equity according to maybe equity but not appreciation. And appreciation unknown. Maybe it holds its value, maybe it does appreciate depending on who knows what down.

I suspect stayed in place for five or six years it would increase in value looks like it belongs now I don't know whether you know we can also change this down the line we're starting out tough and if we need to become less tough that can be changed it's hard to move it forward you know it's hard to

if I The variance provision is alive and well. So if someone were to come in and say uh I I want approval but I want a condition of approval which is to eliminate any aspect of the code then you it's your discretion to approve that request or not. But it will if it's an hindrance it'll come to you. Early speculation on these projects typically is vetted by planning staff and planning staff will say this is new uh this is new code. We have a variance provision uh within our existing code and it's a condition it's possibly that it's possible that any discretionary permit would come forward with with potential for conditions imposed by the regulating authority. So, so Bob the developer that has this lot I laid out earlier one of the guys he says he comes to the city and says this guy wants to months I want a variance on this lot so months

yeah then you can just now now it's setting a precedent and if we find that that is kind of happening regularly we might need to I mean any the best code is flexible code so you need to develop it in a way that gives you the authority you start with a high bar and you you pair it back to the market but at the same time you don't turn away the market uh if it delivers with a a conditional request. So with the

I'd like to speak to the information that we're getting from the public and we we're getting it all the time every day that that there's not enough rentals for people who want to come here and work and live. So and and we we heard someone say that you you uh people become aware of this availability is going to be rent it's going to be rented just like that. So I just speak to that that that is that is the prevailing need that so that's where where we're going to be housing people. I'm not Yeah, I'm not arguing against that. I'm not arguing against the any of it. I'm just

I'm not I didn't think you were arguing. I just wanted to to look I look at patterns and the pattern here is that there's not enough housing for people who want to live here. If people need to have a conversation side of our deliberations. Could you please take that outside? That that's all that was my point. Yeah. Are we good? So, it sounds like there is interest in adding this movement restriction from Belinda Allen. Have you did you have thoughts about the movement restriction including it? Yeah. One year. Yes. Okay. And Sydney Lee.

Yes. And David, I think we did that in the last one, didn't we? We didn't. But we need to pin it down here about whether we're adding this to the ordinance that we're voting on now. Yeah, it's kind of looped into two things in one. So, it's not it's amend the municipal code and approve it is kind of the same thing.

Are we going to amend the municipal code including this new movement restriction addition or are we not? So maybe I' I'd like to get a sense of if how people feel about adding that and then once I have that sense then we can move forward with motion. I mean yeah I I would add it. I just Okay. I I don't want it as it's written in R2 and R3. I mean I don't know. I know. I know.

I mean unless it's ADU or primary dwelling units. I don't like the tiny home village aspect of it in R2 and R3. So, and I appreciate that and I think you've helped our conversation. We we do hear I don't I mean and I don't think a lot of people in town like it are doing our three. So, we we do hear you, David. And I wish they were here letting us know, but they're not. Okay. Are we I think that we it sounds like we have consensus around in adding the movement restriction to the ordinance as written. And do we have a motion?

So, I also want to make sure that everybody's okay with the general ordinance because well, well, a motion will get us to that. Will it? I Well, we'll find out. We'll find out the next step. All right. Yeah. Yeah, it is. I make a motion to approve the resolution PC 2025-02 with the addition of the uh ordinance MSMC chapter 1818 tiny homes on wheels. And that's the movement restriction. That's 40.040. Yeah, the movement restriction. Okay.

That's the motion. Okay. Right. Do we have a second? Yeah, I second that. All right. And seconded all in. Do we want a roll call vote on this? Maybe we want a roll call vote, please. Commissioner. So you would say I or nay? I I Yes. Do you? Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Park. Yes. Commissioner Higura. Yes. Commissioner McDow. Nay. Chair. I. Okay. The motion passed. We have approved the resolution. Did you need us to um make a motion regarding the um SQA categorical exemption? Uh yes, please do that.

All right. So, we need a second motion, please. on the page.

So yeah, just one right there.

I move we find the action qualifies for S squa category exemption pursuant to guidelines section 15061 B3 for common sense exemption pursuant to the findings conveyed in resolution PC 20252 and amend well we already did the other one amending the okay all right so I have a motion that um regarding this the exemption do I have a second I second that second all in favor I think we can just go for it all in favor I

opposed None. Motion passes unanimously and we have made our way through the tiny homes on wheels ordinances where we have Jeff has a legacy the tiny homes on wheels. Thank you for your hard work on that.

Yeah. So for procedural clarity, this will move to uh council. Um we'll we'll shoot for the August meeting um probably the latter well certainly the latter meeting to the 28th I think it is uh and it'll be a public hearing your recommendation and the context there therein will be conveyed to council uh and this that'll be another bite of the apple that the public uh will have. Uh it is fair game for you all to present your um justification for your findings. Um typically the chair would show up and uh or speak to any questions associated with that. So

that would not be typical. That would not be typical FYI. Uh so um and staff will in the staff report for context, you know, attach staff report here and so they'll understand the context associated with the R2R3 ownership issue. So it's not the last time this will be vetted public. That's that's all I can add to that. Thank you. All right. move on to item seven, commission and staff comments. Would you like to go first?

Yeah, I will say that my replacement has been selected. Uh we we move very quickly over the last uh week and a half or so. Uh we shortlisted and interviewed. Um we um a woman who is uh got a great deal of experience down in central California area. um Tuscado most recently, well not most recently but previously as as the most relevant example. Um so mountain community um with similar size or more recently not

Yeah. Then most recently uh another community uh the name of which escapes me. Sorry. Uh anyway, uh two small towns similar in size and scope and and disposition. Uh and she uh she'll fit in great. I I spent the day with her. Uh gave her the the uh tour of the town, a little bit of show and tell around the department, brought her up, you know, all the issues. Uh and you know, she was already finishing my sentences. So, she's dealt with a lot of this uh design standards most recently. Um hasn't addressed the tiny homes on wheels issue. Uh will be her responsibility to carry forward uh at at the outcome of council. So her starting date is uh August 4th and uh you'll see her in your August meeting here and um yeah that's that's all

cool commissioners have any comments? I do. I miss you already. And I just appreciate I have a lot of gratitude for moving quickly and what you're describing sounds like a good replacement.

Yes, thanks for taking the time. I do have one question. I was talking to Ken Kellogg earlier today. Um, is there any chance you have a model? Apparently the city doesn't have if you wanted to have a memorial bench. or something like that. They don't have a format for doing that. Do you have any sort of ways that cities have done that in the past? Yeah, the public rightway standard are in our municipal code or you could they could be more robust thinking more like in Parker Park.

Yeah. Yeah. Uh, Parker Parker plus a Parker. That's um yeah, it would take an amendment to the municipal code to add more design um elements. Yeah, design heavy review criteria. We don't we don't have those. It's up to the public works director essentially. So Ken could tell me it's okay. You're wondering about application to put one in. Yes. Gotcha. Yeah. Yeah. It would be be through an enroment permit uh issued by a public works director. Okay. Great. Thanks.

And then, sorry, one more thing. If there's any if there's any uh entitlement history that that uh would would um be discovered through staff review, then that would apply. I don't know. I don't know. There may have been a a land use permit associated with that project um back in the day. Uh I don't know. So, we'd have to do a little research, find out if that thing was entitled through a I don't think it was, you know, some kind of That may not have been the conventional discretionary a volunteer effort mostly. Okay.

Ron Stevens and I worked on that contractor used to be married to designation. Okay. a former planner of ours. Anything else? Okay, Belinda. No. Okay. Well, thanks. Sorry.

Yes. Okay. Uh item eight, future agenda items. Uh first and foremost is the land use element uh of the general plan. Uh I we we did have some um our our consulting firm Plan West who you've seen present here during the course of the housing element adoption process. Um they have some uh revenue left in their contract and they're updating they'll be updating our land use element for us. uh they have provided um a first pass on the audit of our existing land use element to come up with a list of um must dos, should do, and could do uh to comply with state law. I have that document uh in my uh inbox and I have yet to review it thoroughly or um schedule it for release um and will do so before I leave. So, I will distribute that document to you. Uh and you'll see in there some very clear um bullet list format uh items that we need to you all need to consider in the coming months and uh and then move forward to council with those. So uh uh the Kim is my my successor. Uh she and I discussed this today and I will be following up with her before I leave about timing of that for you. I was waiting on tonight's items. Uh so now that we've sort of cleared the deck, if you will, on tiny homes, we can move forward with the land use element. Um the reason I chose not to keep to colllocate those on one agenda was because they're both media items and they require in-depth deliberation and consideration. So you'll see those probably a dedicated uh meeting uh in in August. So I think it's the 19th. They're required by law to be updated

based on a produced to comply with state law. Um I've reviewed it. It's very thorough and it's I think it's a should be a a rubber stamp approval uh to move this through as quickly as possible to get it into the ordinance though we comply with state law for disaster uh fund. um uh uh you know mitigation funding for for for repaying our costs associated with defending against natural disasters. So it's it's a time imperative. So we wouldn't see that before we saw the land use element.

Uh no it would be either concurrent. We haven't discussed how that is brought before you but you will see land use and safety are two separate chapters you know elements in the general plan. Um you'll probably those maybe colllocated in one agenda, you know, one item after the other kind of thing. So, but that'll be up to to Kim to to bring for you. I was assuming the land use was going to be a number of months. It would take a number of meetings and I kind of feel like we could put one put them both on this first agenda to get the the the safety element moving through rather quickly so it goes off to council uh and then really dig into the

the details of the land use. So, that will probably I I've got a tenative calendar set out for the about another year. So those two were actually on the same agenda in August pending results tonight. Okay. Anything else?

I'm going you're right. I'm going to do one of my comments. What is the deal with finding another commissioner? Oops. Oh, uh, nobody's committed. Nobody responded. It has to be in city. In city. If anybody's res listening tonight, if anybody wants to join our commission, we need a seventh person lives inside Manchester City. You could have more than three that don't live in the city. No. It's a quorum that lives in the city. Yeah.

Yeah. Alas. Okay. All right. Um I'm adjourning our Mount Chester Planning Commission regular meeting for Tuesday, July 15, 2025.