Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables proposal to allow two‑story stick‑built homes in Canyon RV Park
Summary
The council debated a code amendment to permit two‑story stick‑built homes in a platted RV subdivision (Canyon RV Park). The planning commission recommended approval, but council concerns about parking, lot size and precedent led to a motion to table the item.
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council considered an ordinance to amend Title 10 to allow site‑built (stick‑built) dwellings in platted RV park subdivisions recorded before January 2020, using Canyon RV Park as the example. The proposed code change would raise the maximum height to 35 feet and apply the 900‑square‑foot limit to building footprint, effectively allowing two‑story houses up to about 1,200–1,400 square feet in some configurations.
The applicant (property owner) told the council the existing park model and small‑lot pattern (dating to 1987) has produced dwellings that are hard to finance and that adding a second story and optional garages would create more conventional, bankable housing for local families. He said he has market interest and has considered installing individual meters to improve conditions.
Multiple councilmembers raised concerns that permitting two‑story homes on very small lots would amount to ‘‘backdoor zoning’’ — effectively creating R‑1‑type development in an area originally platted for RV use — and could set precedent for other parcels. Questions focused on parking and congestion (would garages reduce on‑street parking or worsen crowding?), lot sizes (approx. 2,500 sqft) and whether the change would improve long‑term outcomes or merely defer problems.
The Planning Commission and staff had supported the amendment, noting Canyon RV Park is the only platted RV subdivision recorded before Jan 2020 with separate meters and that the change would be limited in application. After discussion, council moved to table the item. The motion to table (mover recorded as councilman 'Preach', second by Councilman Hershey) carried; the item was left on the books without a return date specified in the motion.
Next steps: the item was tabled; council members and staff may pursue additional analysis on parking, precedence, and lot consolidation before returning the matter to the agenda.
