Planning Workshop
April 27, 2016
Proposed Topics
• “Tiny Homes”
• What are they, and where do they fit?
• Bed & Breakfasts
• How do we balance commerce and neighborhood integrity?
• Buffer & Compatibility Requirements
• Can we increase land use efficiency?
• Co-housing & Dormitories
• Workforce housing solutions need to evolve!
“Tiny Homes”
• An umbrella category
• Subjective definition
• Personal
• Design oriented
• RVs, park models, stick built, covered wagons
• Size oriented
• Small (400 – 1000 sq. ft.)
• Tiny (<400 sq. ft.)
Important Terms
• IRC = International Residential Code
• Adopted standard for residential construction statewide in Utah
• HUD = Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Less stringent construction standard for manufactured homes
• ANSI = American National Standards Institute (A119.5 Standard)
• A certification that a unit complies with requirements of the Recreation Vehicle
Industry Association (RVIA), including park models
Tiny Home Categories
Description
• Primary structure
• Stick built or modular affixed to ground
• IRC approved
Regulatory Considerations:
• None - No minimum building size in GC
Tiny Home Categories
Description
• Secondary or accessory structure
• Attached or detached
• Stick built or modular affixed to ground
• IRC approved
Regulatory Considerations:
• Minimal: Renter only as an ADU with usespecific standards
Tiny Home Categories
Description
• Primary or accessory structure
• Stick built or modular affixed to ground
• Non-IRC, Non-HUD approved
Regulatory Considerations:
• Moderate to Severe: Only commercial
RV/CGs can accommodate these units
Tiny Home Categories
Description
• Primary or accessory structure
• Stick built or modular NOT affixed to
ground until installed on-site
• HUD approved
Regulatory Considerations:
• Moderate: GC permits HUD approved
“tiny homes” using the same regulations
as other manufactured homes
Tiny Home Categories
Description
• Primary or accessory structure
• Stick built or modular NOT on a
foundation
• ANSI approved or no standard at all
Regulatory Considerations:
• Moderate to Severe: Only commercial
RV/CGs can accommodate these units
(includes Park Model RV)
Planning & Zoning Goals
1. To enable the development of housing that is not IRC or HUD approved,
but can otherwise be viewed as safe, accessible, and affordable for Grand
County’s workforce; and,
How and where should Grand County accommodate non-IRC, non-HUD “tiny houses?”
2. To enable the development of IRC approved structures on small lots.
How and where should Grand County accommodate IRC approved “tiny houses?”
Planning & Zoning Solutions
Solution
Impact
Relax regulations in Sec.
Increase infill development
3.2.2B, Accessory Dwelling
Unit
Expand rental market
Decrease housing costs for
owners and renters
Comments
Planning commission
approval.
Awaiting council approval –
see 5/3/16 agenda.
Planning & Zoning Solutions
Solution
Create a “tiny home” zone
designation and
associated use-specific
standards
Impact
Enable IRC or HUD
approved “tiny homes” on
“tiny lots”
Comments
A “tiny house” is still
expensive if it is placed on
an expensive, large lot
Without tiny lots, tiny houses
don’t reduce inefficient/
expensive land use (sprawl)
Planning & Zoning Solutions
Solution
Impact
Create a non-commercial
Enable non-IRC, non-HUD
RV/CG zone designation
approved units on parcels
and associated use-specific without commercial zoning
standards
Comments
Grand County doesn’t
necessarily need more
commercial RV/CGs.
Long-term occupancy in a
commercial RV/CG can still
be expensive, and doesn’t
provide a neighborhood feel
Planning & Zoning Solutions
Solution
Impact
Comments
Add dormitories to Sec.
Enable high density, deedGrand County is in dire need
3.3.2D Employee Housing, restricted workforce housing of housing for this
Accessory
for seasonal and servicepopulation group
industry employees
Planning & Zoning Solutions
Solution
Add non-IRC units to Sec.
3.3.2D, and regulate the
same as non-commercial
RV/CGs
Impact
Comments
Better regulate outfitters’ onsite employee housing, and
expand employee housing
options
Currently, only IRC approved
housing may be constructed
on-site
Illegal on-site camping may
be prevalent throughout the
County
Economic Realities
• Detached tiny homes on large, expensive lots are ok
• Detached tiny homes on tiny lots are better
• Attached tiny homes are the best
• Land costs are the real hurdle
• Kitchen and bathroom costs are relatively fixed…
• Cost/sq. ft. decreases significantly as building size increases
Bed & Breakfasts
• Categorically different from vacation rentals
• Regulatory differences
• Any residential zone district
• On-site manager
• Maximum 5 bedrooms
Impacts
• Impacts on housing
affordability
• Neighborhood &
community character
• Neighborhood tension
• “Party houses”
• Building safety
• Permit and tax compliance
•
•
•
•
Noise
Parking
Trash/debris
Difficulty responding to
neighbor complaints
• Balance between
traditional and nontraditional lodging
Planning & Zoning Solutions
Solution
Impact
Require land-use permit in Easier to revoke nonaddition to business
compliant businesses
license
Land-use permit triggers a
“change of use.”
Possibility of charging
commercial transportation
impact fees
Comments
Currently, only a business
license is required
Planning & Zoning Solutions
Solution
Prohibit any and all onstreet parking by B&B
guests
Impact
Minimize impacts to local,
public streets
Comments
Enforcement challenges
Additional Ideas
• Noticing requirements
• Increase B&B (and vacation rental) business license fees
• Encourage GWSSA to charge commercial user rates for water & sewer
Additional Questions
• Buffer distances and cul-de-sac/dead-end street restrictions
• Minimum lot dimensional standards
• Prohibit construction solely for B&B uses
Buffer & Compatibility Requirements
• Regulatory Considerations
• Land use efficiency
• Protecting existing residential development
• “Looming effect”
• Solar access
• Canyon views
Fiscal impacts of buffer requirements: REAL development cost scenarios
Assume 16 Lots
Assume 21 Lots
SOURCES OF FUNDS
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Product T ype
Lot Sa le s---T ota l
N umbe r
Pe r Lot
of Lots Sa le s Price
16
61,500
$984,000
EXPENSES
N umbe r Pe r Lot
of Lots Sa le s Price
21
61,500 $ 1,291,500
EXPENSES
ACQU ISIT ION AN D H OLD IN G COST S
T OT AL
D ESIGN / D EVELOPMEN T : SIT E
T OT AL
CON ST R U CT ION : SIT E
T OT AL
FIN AN CIN G & GEN ER AL D EVELOPMEN T
T OT AL
T OT AL D EVELOPMEN T COST
Break-even Total Cost per Unit
$
280,000
$78,000
$
92,900
$593,250
$
693,000
$191,218
$1,142,468
$71,404
T OT AL FU N D S LE SS COST OF D EVELOPMEN
Shortfall
T:
Assumptions:
$280,000
at 16 lots
($158,468)
16 lot yield with 50 ft. buffer
requirement
$ 208,230
$ 1,274,130
$
60,673
Excess at 21 lots $ 17,370
21 lot yie ld with no 50 ft. buffe r
re quire me nt
Land Use Impacts of Buffer Requirements
Planning & Zoning Solutions
Solution
Impact
Reduce buffer requirement Increased land use efficiency
to the maximum setback
requirement of 20 feet
Comments
Compatibility across existing
and proposed development
is maintained
Planning & Zoning Solutions
Solution
Reduce 150 ft. setback for
buildings over 28 ft. high
to 50 ft.
Impact
Increased land-use efficiency
Comments
The only way to maximize
land use with equivalent
building footprints is to
increase building heights