Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rv Parks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hurricane council delays decision on allowing two‑story stick‑built homes in existing RV subdivision
Summary
The council continued consideration of a developer request to allow two‑story, stick‑built homes inside an existing recreation‑vehicle park subdivision, asking staff and the developer to meet and return with refinements; the item was continued to Aug. 7 by a 4‑1 vote.
Hurricane City council members on Wednesday agreed to continue debate over proposed code changes that would allow two‑story, stick‑built homes inside a long‑platted recreational‑vehicle subdivision, after several members said they wanted more time to study impacts.
The item would change a standing local restriction that has limited site‑built dwellings in the subdivision to a 900‑square‑foot total house size and a 15‑foot height limit. The developer asked the council to allow a second story so homes could reach about 1,200–1,400 square feet in total living area while keeping the existing 900‑square‑foot footprint; he asked for a maximum building height near 25 feet (the underlying zone permits 35 feet).
The request prompted a lengthy planning‑style discussion about neighborhood character, long‑term land‑use goals and precedent. Supporters said the change would convert aging park models into more durable, owner‑occupied housing with garages. Opponents warned that permitting two‑story stick‑built homes in the RV subdivision could amount to an unplanned rezoning—adding density and altering the look and maintenance responsibility for the area.
Planning staff and several council members said information remains missing about how the larger units would affect parking, circulation and common areas, and whether the subdivision’s homeowners association and recorded declarations need to be updated before the city acts. The developer described the subdivision’s unusual ownership history and said many lots are vacant and that residents and prospective buyers have asked for garages or enclosed storage.
Councilman Clark Faucett moved to continue the item to the council’s Aug. 7 meeting after staff, the developer and at least two council members meet to explore alternate solutions. Councilman Pritchett seconded the motion. The council voted to continue the item, 4 to 1.
The council and staff also agreed to schedule a technical meeting between planning staff, the developer and interested council members to examine lot sizes, parking counts, the plat and possible alternatives such as limited replatting, conditional use mechanisms, or a plan to finish the subdivision’s common‑area amenities.
If the parties cannot agree on a narrowly tailored code update, the council indicated it would prefer to see specific plat or design changes rather than broad, permanent changes to the city’s zoning rules.
The matter is scheduled for the Aug. 7 council meeting; in the meantime staff will prepare clarifying material for the council and the developer.
