Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Manufactured Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners preview Gaslinger park‑model RV residence request in Kachina Village; neighbors and fire mitigation raised
Summary
Staff previewed CEP‑205007, a request to place an ANSI‑certified park‑model RV (approx. 385 sq ft) as a permanent residence on a 0.2‑acre AR lot in Kachina Village. Commissioners and staff discussed neighbor opposition, fire mitigation, skirting, and whether to require site buffering as CUP conditions.
County staff presented CEP‑205007, the Gaslinger request to use a park‑model RV as a permanent residence on a 0.2‑acre parcel in Kachina Village (AR zone). The owner is Eric Gaslinger (Flagstaff) and the applicant is listed as Steve Sorden; staff described the unit as an ANSI‑certified park model RV approximately 385 square feet.
Staff said the parcel is served by Kachina Village Improvement District water and sewer. The site is within a dense, heavily treed subdivision of small lots; staff reported prior neighbor complaints about RVs in the area and that neighbor opposition is likely. Commissioners asked whether wheels remain on the unit and whether skirting would be required; staff said wheels would not remain and skirting (closing the underside) could be required as a condition.
The commission discussed fire mitigation and buffering due to the closely spaced, treed lots. Staff and legal clarified that zoning and CUP conditions can address site improvements (setbacks, screening, cleared defensible space) but cannot change the construction standard of the RV itself (RV code differs from HUD/manufactured or IRC residential codes). Commissioners suggested a cleared buffer and landscape plan could be conditioned to address combustibility and reassure neighbors.
Staff also noted manufactured homes (HUD code) are permitted by‑right in the zone while park‑model RVs are certified under REBA or ANSI; commissioners and staff emphasized the distinction between park‑model RVs and tiny homes built to residential code.
Why this matters: The case highlights recurring county questions about the appropriateness of RVs as permanent residences in dense subdivisions, the limits of zoning authority to impose building‑code upgrades, and practical mitigation (skirting, defensible space) to address neighborhood concerns.
Next steps: The item will be scheduled for a public hearing with outreach materials; staff said conditions tied to site impacts (landscaping, buffers, skirting) would be available for commission consideration.
